Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on work-life expectancies compiled by the United States Department of Labor). In this regard, however, we must agree with the appellant. If sufficient, reliable evidence of Weil’s actual expenses is available then the district court should give the appellant the latitude to introduce this evidence. Once again we note that the actual maintenance deduction is a jury question and if the evidence of Weil’s actual maintenance expenditures will assist the jury in this determination then the evidence should be permitted. Weil’s estate is free to argue to the jury as to why the statistics are more accurate than the evidence of actual maintenance expenses presented by the appellant. See, e.g., Strickland v. Roosevelt County Rural Elec. Coop., 99 N.M. 335, 657 P.2d 1184, 1191 (Ct.App. 1982) , cert. denied, 99 N.M. 358, 658 P.2d 433
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the limitations of estimates of worklife expectancy and personal maintenance deductions based on department of labor tables
B. holdingthat  301a confers jurisdiction on federal district courts over any agreement between employers and labor organizations significant to the maintenance of labor peace between them
C. holding claims based on the fair labor standards act subject to arbitration
D. holding that denial of petition for modification of maintenance was proper when the parties agreement prohibited modification of maintenance
E. holding neutrality and nondiscrimination provisions of election agreement enforceable under  301 of the lmra as an agreement between an employer and a labor organization significant to the maintenance of labor peace between them
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.