With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the employment context. Generally, such covenants are disfavored as restraints of trade and are construed strictly in favor of the employee. Id. at 678; Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 471, 472-73 (Tenn.1984). Covenants not to compete are not per se invalid; rather, they may be enforced if they are reasonable under the particular circumstances. Hasty, 671 S.W.2d at 472 (citing Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. Berry, 219 Tenn. 280, 409 S.W.2d 361, 363 (1966)). Determining whether an agreement in restraint of trade is reasonable, and therefore enforceable, is a question of law for the Court where the material facts are undisputed. Baker v. Hooper, No. 03A01-9707-CV-00280, 1998 WL 608285, at *6 (Tenn.Ct.App. Aug. 6, 1998); See Murfreesboro Med. Clinic, 166 S.W.3d at 683 (<HOLDING>). The contract clauses at issue here do not

A: holding that the restrictive covenants at issue are unenforceable as a matter of public policy
B: holding similar agreement void on public policy grounds
C: recognizing an agreement whose sole purpose is to prevent competition per se is void as a matter of public policy
D: holding physicians covenants not to compete are unenforceable and void as a matter of public policy
D.