Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Input: employees were terminated provided that public hospitals "shall have full power and authority to promulgate and adopt suitable staff and hospital rules and regulations, to employ such personnel as may be necessary to properly maintain and operate such hospital, and to establish employee salaries and other employment benefits as may be advisable to attrac ns this case because of the well established rule of statutory construction in Mississippi that, when a cause of action is created solely by statute and that statute is amended by the legislature, the courts are to treat the statute as if it had always existed as amended and must apply the statute as it exists at trial, regardless of whether the amendment was , 421 F.Supp. 393, 397-98 (N.D.Miss.1976), aff'd, 573 F.2d 84 (5th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). We do not decide that issue in this case,
Holding statements: (A) holding that a mississippi statute providing that employees could be terminated only for cause establishes a property interest under the fourteenth amendment (B) holding that mississippi statute and city ordinance providing employer the right to discharge employees found inefficient or for other good cause creates a property interest (C) holding that an atwill employee may have a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the reason for a discharge was the employees exercise of a right conferred by a wellestablished legislative enactment (D) holding the pro se plaintiff has no breach of contract or wrongful discharge claim against defendant employer where the employer wrongfully characterized her discharge as for cause but remanding to trial court to consider whether the pro se plaintiff suffered some other compensable injury if the employer as alleged intentionally mischaracterized the plaintiffs discharge in order to reduce its unemployment contributions (E) holding that where the immediate cause or motivating factor of a discharge is the employees assertion of statutory rights the discharge is discriminatory under section 215a3 whether or not grounds for other discharge exist
Output:
(B)