With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". employee who is qualified for a form of disability retirement can be removed without prejudice to the employee’s right pursuant to N.J.S.A 43:15A-25.1 to seek to maximize receipt of compensation and retirement disability benefits. Finally, we also note that nothing in N.J.S.A. 43:15A-25.1 suggests that an employer is prohibited from terminating an employee, or executing a reduction in force eliminating an employee’s position, merely because an employee receives a workers’ compensation award, so long as the employee has not been discharged simply because he or she has claimed workers’ compensation benefits or because he or she remains disabled from-returning to service. N.J.S.A. 34:15-39.1; Novak v. Camden Co. Health Services Center Board, 255 N.J.Super. 93, 604 A.2d 649 (App.Div.1992) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we view the outcomes in both Mercer

A: holding public policy prohibited employer from discharging employee in retaliation for seeking workers compensation benefits
B: holding that claimant may simultaneously receive unemployment benefits and workers compensation for temporary partial disability where statute only precludes receipt of workers compensation for temporary total or permanent total disability if claimant is receiving unemployment benefits
C: holding that where employer paid benefits under group disability policy to employee under mistaken belief that his condition resulted from illness rather than injury arising out of and in course of employment employees acceptance of such benefits did not bar him from benefits to which he was entitled under workers compensation law and employer was properly allowed credit for payments made under disability policy
D: holding public employer may execute reduction in force resulting in elimination of position of employee receiving workers compensation disability benefits
D.