With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". can be characterized as “new” or “future” as opposed to “continued” at-will employment. Jimenez, however, correctly responds that in Missouri, a promise of at-will employment does not qualify as consideration,- regardless of whether it is characterized as “new,” “future,” or “continued” at-will employment. Thus, it does not provide the consideration needed to support the arbitration agreement in this case. Defendants concede that Jimenez was an at-will employee. They also agree that under Morrow v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 273 S.W.3d 15 (Mo.App.W.D.2008), a promise of “continued” at-will employment will not constitute consideration for purposes of- enforcing an arbitration agreement. See also Clemmons v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., 397 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Mo.App.W.D.2013) (<HOLDING>). Defendants argue, however, that this line of

A: holding offer of continued atwill employment did not constitute consideration for the arbitration agreement
B: holding that an alleged oral modification of a written employment agreement was not enforceable because the employees action in remaining on the job did not constitute adequate consideration
C: holding in an employment discrimination case that the continued employment of the plaintiffs rival in a position previously held by the plaintiff did not constitute a systemic violation
D: holding that a postinjury arbitration agreement was not part of a employment contract when a seamans continued employment was not conditioned upon its execution
A.