With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Eales v. Tanana Valley Medical-Surgical Group, Inc., 663 P.2d 958, 959 (Alaska 1983) (ruling that an employee who alleges that he was fired without cause in violation of the terms of his contract has a claim of wrongful discharge). The mayor’s refusal to reinstate Ross as director of public works, despite the decision of the grievance committee, violated Ross’s contract with the City and constituted wrongful discharge as a matter of law. The City concedes that the personnel manual, including the grievance process, was part of Ross’s employment contract. The personnel manual therefore modified Ross’s contract by providing that he would not be fired if he successfully appealed his supervisor’s decision. See Jones v. Central Peninsula Gen. Hosp., 779 P.2d 783, 787 (Alaska 1989) (<HOLDING>). Ross did successfully appeal the mayor’s

A: holding where employee handbook and employment offer letter disclaimed creation of employment contract that employees testimony of his understanding of terms of agreement did not raise fact issue of specific express and clear agreement contradicting the express provisions of the personnel manual and the employment offer letter
B: holding the question of whether insurance companys requests were reasonable under policy language was a fact question
C: holding that whether a personnel policy manual modifies an employment contract is a question of fact
D: holding it is a question of fact
C.