With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Delgado, 406 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tex.1966)). The Plaintiffs were both initially paid the 8-hour rate before they moved to the 12-hour shift system where they were paid the 12-hour rate (i.e., the “calculated rate” arrived at by multiplying their 8-hour rate by .857). Thus, there was clearly a meeting of the minds and a contract existed between the parties with respect to the 8-hour rate (i.e., the “posted rate” on the Plaintiffs’ employee personnel files and those that were posted throughout the plant). That brings us to the issue of whether the contract was modified. B. Modification Under Texas law, even an at-will employee has a contract with her employer that is “valid and subsisting” “until terminated.” See Paniagua v. City of Galveston, Tex., 995 F.2d 1310, 1313 (5th Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). Though employers are free to change their

A: holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee
B: holding that an employers promise to pay a bonus to an employee was not enforceable where the employee was already obligated under a written contract to perform the services in question
C: holding that employee handbook did not give rise to implied contract where it stated that it was not a contract and that employment was terminable at will
D: holding that under texas law a contract may be terminable at will and without cause but an employer cannot promise to pay employee a certain wage and then unilaterally decide to pay employee less for work she has already performed
D.