With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in charge of checking employer’s payroll and reconciling discrepancies in employees’ reported hours. Claimant’s supervisor, Ms. Meister, instructed her to list clock-in and clock-out times on employer’s payroll program. Claimant consistently failed to comply with this directive. Ms. Meister gave claimant three chances to correct her behavior. Claimant was formally warned by Ms. Meister on December 28, 2009, to verify hours. After that warning, claimant failed on eleven occasions to list clock-in and clock-out times for employees. Claimant’s repeated failure to comply with explicit instructions takes her conduct outside the realm of mere mistakes or poor work performance and into the realm of insubordination. See Freeman v. Gary Glass & Mirror, LLC, 276 S.W.3d 388, 393 (Mo. App.2009) (<HOLDING>). (emphasis added). Ms. Fendler appealed.

A: holding that a claimants failure to lose weight does not constitute a refusal to follow the treatment
B: holding that two instances of misconduct do not indicate a persistent and widespread pattern of misconduct that amounts to a city custom or policy of overlooking police misconduct
C: holding that claimants repeated failure to follow the employers specific directions amounts to misconduct connected with work
D: holding that an employers mere failure to follow its own rules and regulations does not give rise to a protected property interest
C.