With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the language in the applicable statute implied that the Board was an indispensable party, even to the point of allowing the district court to hold the Board liable for costs if it found the Board acted with gross negligence, with malice, or in bad faith in making its decision. Id. at 587-88. There are no such implications in the present ease. Nowhere does the legislature imply the hearing examiner is an indispensable party, nor is the hearing examiner at jeopardy for costs as the Board was in Reynolds. The recommendation to demote Woodruff came from Nuehia, the Chief of Police, and the hearing examiner’s review of that recommendation was a quasi-judicial function, as was the Commission’s review of the appellant’s termination by the sheriff’s department in Connor. 726 S.W.2d at 207 (<HOLDING>). Generally, review of a court’s decision does

A: holding employment security commissions findings of fact that an employee was discharged without cause would not be given preclusive effect on the basis of collateral estoppel in employees subsequent civil action against employer for wrongful termination
B: holding commissions review of appellants termination was an action of quasijudicial character
C: holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable
D: holding that termination is an adverse employment action
B.