With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Hawaii common law allows such a cause of action for at-will employees, providing that “an employer may be held liable in tort where his discharge of an employee violates a clear mandate of public policy.” Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 65 Haw. 370, 380, 652 P.2d 625, 631 (1982). To determine if an employee termination raises a colorable Pamar claim, “courts should inquire whether the employer’s conduct contravenes the letter or purpose of a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision or scheme.” Id. Because of the “somewhat vague meaning of the term ‘public policy,”’ a claim under Pamar further requires a violation of a “clearly defined policy.” Id. at 379, 652 P.2d at 630-31; see also Takaki v. Allied Machinery Corp., 87 Hawai'i 57, 63, 951 P.2d 507, 513 (Haw.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). A. The HWPA Provides that Employees May Bring

A: holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy
B: holding employees identified no clear public policy which their termination violated
C: holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy
D: holding that pamar only applies where  clear public policy is involved
D.