With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Bender was not Suburban’s at-will employee, we find no authority mandating that we apply any body of law other than that pertaining to representations made in employee handbooks and similar guidebooks. Reasoning by analogy, we thus apply that body of law to the instant facts. In Maryland, an employment relationship of indefinite term is, with few exceptions, presumed to be at-will, terminable by either party at any time. Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31, 35, 432 A.2d 464 (1981). We recognize a limited exception to at-will employment for employer policy statements, such as those found in handbooks and on applications, “when, with knowledge of their existence, employees start or continue to work for the employer.” Dahl v. Brunswick Corp., 277 Md. 471, 476, 356 A.2d 221 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, we have refused to find

A: holding that a plan providing severance pay for reduction in work force simply did not contemplate the effect of a sale of a business on the availability of severance pay
B: holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action
C: holding that severance pay received postseparation was not marital property as the condition to receive the pay was related to the sale of the corporation not to husbands work during his marriage
D: holding that severance pay policy was part of employment contract
D.