Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of plaintiffs discrimination claim was inappropriate given that the CBA “neither created the right [plaintiff] asserts nor can it remove or alter that right”); Daniels v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 789 F.Supp.2d 161, 164-165 (D.D.C.2011) (concluding that plaintiffs DCHRA discrimination and retaliation claims were not preempted because plaintiffs claims did not require interpretation of the CBA, and were “based on rights created by DCHRA and not rights created by the CBA”). ' However, where the rights are created by the CBA, or involve negotiable state duties “around which parties may contract,” Section 301 will preempt the claim. Humble, 305 F.3d at 1007 n. 3; see also, Int’l Broth. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Hechler, 481 U.S. 851, 861-62, 107 S.Ct. 2161, 95 L.Ed.2d 791 (1987) ; Allis-Chalmers, 471 U.S. at 217-18, 105 S.Ct.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs state law claim against a nonsignatory to the cba was preempted by  301
B. holding that plaintiffs had standing to bring section 301 lawsuit to enforce seniority rights under cba
C. holding that the plaintiffs claim that he was owed wages following his discharge was preempted because this right was created by a cba provision stating that an employee who is discharged shall be paid immediately
D. holding that an employees retaliation claim was not preempted by section 301 because he was exercising his rights under the states antidiscrimination laws and the terms of the cba were at most relevant background for the employees termination
E. holding that plaintiffs negligence claim was preempted by section 301 because employers duty to provide a safe workplace was expressly created by the cba
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.