An employee of a family-owned car dealership suffered an injury while lifting computer equipment on the job. The employee reported the injury to the HR department, and sought worker's compensation benefits. The owner of the car dealership was convinced that the injury was actually incurred in a stockcar accident, and told a supervisor to get the employee to sign a form waiving his right to receive worker's compensation for the injury. The supervisor (a brother of the owner) was told that if he didn't get the employee (who happened also to be his son) to sign the waiver, both of them would be fired. A waiver was never signed, and both employees were terminated. They sued. All of the following are most likely true, except

(A)The employee who was injured is exercising a legal right, and may not legally be terminated for doing so, based on the public policy exception to employment at will

(B)The employee who was asked to get a signed release for an on-the-job injury is refusing to perform an illegal act, and may not legally be terminated for doing so, based on the public policy exception to employment at will

(C)The owner of the car dealership is within his rights to try to reduce the costs to his company by whatever means he can

(D) The owner's dinner table this Thanksgiving will likely be missing the owner's brother and nephew

(E) All of these are true