With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". covenants incident to an employment contract are valid, but that where the only purpose of the parties in making an independent contract was to agree to a restrictive covenant, such agreement was unenforceable. Jacobson, 427 Pa. at 448, 235 A.2d at 617-18. The Jacobson Court rejected the notion that a restrictive covenant needs to be executed simultaneously with the initial taking of employment with the company, as, in that case, there was a change in employment position when the covenant was agreed to, distinguishing the situation in which an individual had commenced working, and months later was required to execute an identical contract, but containing a restrictive covenant. 427 Pa. at 449, 235 A.2d at 618; see also Capital Bakers, Inc. v. Townsend, 426 Pa. 188, 231 A.2d 292 (1967) (<HOLDING>); Markson Bros. v. Redick, 164 Pa.Super. 499,

A: holding that conduct causing public humiliation was not an actionable adverse employment action because public perceptions were not a term or condition of employment of the plaintiffs employment
B: holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment
C: holding covenant in an employment agreement executed some 12 years after the initial taking of employment was not incident to the taking of employment
D: holding that an employee accepted as a matter of law changes to an employment agreement by continuing employment with the company after he received notice of the changes
C.