Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
concerning employment. If a court can uphold state rights without interpreting the terms of a CBA, allowing suit based on the state rights does not undermine the pur pose of section 301 preemption: guaranteeing uniform interpretation of terms in collective bargaining agreements. Therefore, “nonnegotiable state-law rights ... independent of any right established by contract” are not preempted. Allis-Chalmers, 471 U.S. at 213, 105 S.Ct. at 1912. A contrary rule would permit unions and employers to exempt themselves from state labor standards. Congress never intended “to preempt state rules that proscribe conduct, or establish rights and obligations, independent of a labor contract.” Id. at 212, 105 S.Ct. at 1912; see, e.g., Paige v. Henry J. Kaiser Co., 826 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir.1987) , cert. denied, June 13, 1988. In this case,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy
B. recognizing common law tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of ohio public policy based upon statutory and judicial sources
C. holding that an employees claim for relief for wrongful discharge based on state common law was preempted by  1132a
D. holding that a wrongful discharge claim based on violation of a state public policy is not preempted because it is a nonnegotiable independent statelaw right
E. holding statelaw claim based on alleged failure to give proper notice of right to convert is preempted by erisa
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.