Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a specific duty to cooperate with BRA’s investigation, intentionally and without sufficient excuse. “Given that [BRA] bore the burden of proving misconduct of either kind, we see no need to reopen the hearing, thereby giving the employer a second bite at the proverbial apple; rather, the agency on remand shall make the necessary finding[s] based on the existing record.” So ordered. 1 . Neither witness identified any written documentation referring to the five-day requirement or otherwise describing investigation procedure uard's taking of unauthorized break, during which he placed his gun in a desk drawer at his security post (after removing the bullets), took off his shoes, and prayed briefly at his desk, constituted simple, not gross, misconduct); Doyle, 991 A.2d at 1182, 1184  (internal quotation marks omitted); Odeniran,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that employees failure to comply with employers rule requiring employees to notify employer when a temporary job placement ended did not constitute gross misconduct because the violation was an isolated incident and employer did not try to show that its staffing ability had suffered serious  or indeed any consequences as a result of employees unavailability
B. holding that under the first amendment speech can be pursuant to a public employees official job duties even though it is not required by or included in the employees job description or in response to a request by the employer
C. holding that employers policy which required employee to work without pay in violation of federal law was unreasonable and employees refusal to comply was not misconduct
D. holding unconscionable an arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims against the employer but not requiring the employer to arbitrate claims against the employees
E. holding that the employer had not demonstrated the employee was discharged for gross misconduct because the conduct was an isolated incident and the employer did not try to show that its staffing ability had suffered serious  or indeed any consequences as a result of the employees conduct
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.