In the case of Payroll Advance, Inc. v. Yates, the state appellate court ruling held O a. the plaintiff was allowed to enforce its employment agreement with the defendant since it contained an exculpatory clause to which she expressly consented. O b. none of the other responses are correct. Oc the plaintiff was not allowed to enforce the employment agreement and its non-compete provision due to its terms and conditions amounting to an unreasonable and unduly burdensome restriction on the defendant's ability to to seek employment with a competitor after her termination. od the plaintiff was allowed to enforce the employment agreement and its non-compete provision due to its terms and conditions amounting to a reasonable restriction on the defendant's ability to seek employment with a competitor after her termination. O e the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction order against the defendant, since she signed a non-compete contract