With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of proof, then the opposing party is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law”); In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prod. Liab. Litig., 113 F.3d at 1492 (same). Furthermore, Gaston cannot overcome Perkins’s stated legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating his employment. Therefore, that portion of Perkins’s motion for summary judgment is granted. D. Discharge In Violation Of Public Policy Claim Gaston also asserts a state-law claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Gaston’s complaint alleges that he was terminated in retaliation for pursuing his rights under Iowa workers’ compensation laws. Iowa courts recognize a cause of action for common-law retaliatory discharge. See, e.g., Smith v. Smithway Motor Xpress, Inc., 464 N.W.2d 682, 686 (Iowa 1990) (<HOLDING>); Niblo v. Parr Mfg., Inc., 445 N.W.2d 351, 353

A: holding that illinois cause of action for retaliation does not arise under its workers compensation laws
B: holding that missouris cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws
C: recognizing discharge in retaliation for pursuing rights under iowa workers compensation laws violates public policy and gives rise to commonlaw cause  of action
D: holding that texas cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws
C.