Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
when a union member brings a meritorious grievance, the union’s decision to ignore that grievance or to process it in a perfunctory manner is considered a ministerial action that breaches the union’s duty if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, or performed in bad faith. Nevertheless, a court reviewing a union’s conduct will not find that the union has exercised its duties perfunctorily unless it has treated the union member’s claim so lightly as to suggest an “egregious disregard” of her rights. Kirbyson, 795 F.Supp.2d at 940 (citations omitted). B. Defendants Have Not Demonstrated that the Six-Month Statute of Limitations Bars Vegas’s Claims. The applicable statute of limitations for hybrid § 301/fair representation claims is six months. DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 164-65, 103 S.Ct. 2281 . The limitations period begins to run when the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding ports authority was not an employer subject to the jurisdiction of the national labor relations board
B. holding that a district court may have jurisdiction over action taken by the national labor relations board despite an express statutory finality provision when the agency has acted in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the national labor relations act
C. holding that  301 of the labor management relations act of 1947 29 usc  185 does not preempt claims brought under washingtons minimum wage act chapter 4946 rcw
D. holding that the but for test applied in a mixed motive case under the national labor relations act
E. holding that section 10b of the national labor relations act 29 usc  160b sets the applicable statute of limitations for hybrid  301fair representation claims at six months
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.