Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
preempted and could not be removed from state court); Shafii 83 F.3d at 568-70 (similar). Second, Hernandez also alleges that Conriv promised that if he left the union, he “would continue to receive all of the benefits that he had been receiving as a union member,” and that Conriv breached the contract by “failing to pay [him] according to the agreement.” As with Hernandez’s other breach of contract claims, this is a state law breach of contract claim, indicating that it is not preempted and not removable. See Livadas, 512 U.S. at 123-24, 114 S.Ct. at 2078 (“it is the legal character of a claim, as independent of rights created under the collective-bargaining agreement, that decides whether a state cause of action may go forward”);' Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 388-89, 107 S.Ct. at 2427-28 ; Derrico v. Sheehan Emergency Hospital, 844
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union
B. holding that union members suit based on contract that was independent of a collective bargaining agreement was not preempted and not removable
C. holding section 301 preempted plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with contract because that claim would require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement
D. holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted
E. holding that union members had standing to bring rico claims for reduced compensation under collective bargaining agreement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.