With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". have thoroughly reviewed all the written documentation available on the incidents in question. As I discussed with you when we met on January 23, I find the written warnings to be appropriate and have no reason to rescind them at this time. In review of your personnel file, I see that you have placed a written response to the warnings, as is your right. As we discussed, I will further explore the concern you stated of how and when it is determined that an incident report is filed at Luther Hall, to aid in ensuring uniformity in its usage. [¶ 30] According to Dahlberg’s affidavit, from December 1997 through the spring of 1998 she persisted in insisting the allegations of abuse be investigated. She argues her reports implicated possible violations of the child abuse and neglect law unde (<HOLDING>); Lee v. Walstad, 368 N.W.2d 542, 547

A: holding that termination of an employee for refusing employees request to engage in political lobbying activities violates clear mandate of public policy under pennsylvania law
B: holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy
C: holding employees identified no clear public policy which their termination violated
D: holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy
C.