Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
rights independent of that agreement, including state-law contract rights, so long as the contract relied upon is not a collective-bargaining agreement.” 482 U.S. at 396, 107 S.Ct. at 2431. An employer may then allege that plaintiffs state law claims are preempted, but must do so in state court. Id. at 397, 107 S.Ct. at 2432. Even if the employer proves that plaintiffs claims are preempted, this “does not establish that they are removable to federal court.” Id. at 398, 107 S.Ct. at 2432 (state law claims for breach of individual employment contracts made while plaintiffs were not members of bargaining unit did not arise under federal law and were not removable). Accord, Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 413 n. 12, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 1885 n. 12, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988) . This distinction between jurisdictional
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding section 301 preempted plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with contract because that claim would require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement
B. holding that plaintiffs retaliatory discharge claim was not completely preempted and noting that state court on remand would have to apply federal law to remaining issues requiring interpretation of collective bargaining agreement
C. holding that the present controversy concerns the plaintiffs rights under state and federal statutes which exist independently of the collective bargaining agreement and do not require interpretation of that agreement
D. holding that plaintiffs retaliatory discharge claim under michigan law was not preempted because the statelaw tort of retaliatory discharge creates rights independent of those established by the collective bargaining agreement further holding that discrimination claim was not preempted even though the employer was likely to rely on provisions of the cba in its defense
E. holding state law claim preempted by  301 of labor management relations act only if application of state law requires interpretation of collective bargaining agreement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.