With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 406, 413 (1999). In the instant case, Plaintiff was employed at will. Although at-will employment may be terminated “ ‘for no reason, or for an arbitrary or irrational reason, there can be no right to terminate such a contract for an unlawful reason or purpose that contravenes public policy. A different interpretation would encourage and sanction lawlessness, which law by its very nature is designed to discourage and prevent.’ ” Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co., 325 N.C. 172, 175, 381 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1989) (quoting Sides v. Duke University, 74 N.C. App. 331, 342, 328 S.E.2d 818, 826, disc. review denied, 314 N.C. 331, 333 S.E.2d 490 (1985), overruled in part on other grounds, Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical In y, see Vereen v. Holden, 121 N.C. App. 779, 784, 468 S.E.2d 471, 474 (1996) (<HOLDING>), disc. review denied, 347 N.C. 410, 494 S.E.2d

A: holding that the plaintiffs complaint stated an enforceable claim for wrongful discharge where the employee was wrongfully discharged in retaliation for refusing to testify falsely in a medical malpractice case
B: holding that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts in his complaint to state a claim for wrongful discharge where he alleged he was discharged due to his political affiliation and activities
C: recognizing claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where the employee alleged he was handicapped and that his employer discharged him because of his handicap in violation of nc gen stat  1434222
D: holding that plaintiff had stated a claim for violation of his first amendment right to intimate association where he alleged that his employer harassed him in retaliation for his fathers political activities
B.