With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached an oral contract to continue his pension benefits at the same level when he became an independent franchisor as when he was an employee. Cefalu held that such a claim was preempted by ERISA and properly removable. In explaining that the lawsuit possessed the requisite relation to an employee benefit plan to justify preemption, the court noted that “[t]o compute [plaintiffs] damages, the court must refer to the pension plan under which appellant was covered when, he worked for [defendant].” Id. at 1294. This statement does not, and can not, mean that any lawsuit in which reference to a benefit plan is necessary to compute plaintiffs damages is preempted by ERISA and is removable to federal court. See Burks, 8 F.3d at 306 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, removal on these grounds was

A: holding that the state law contract claim alleged the same conduct as in the erisa claim and was therefore preempted
B: holding that a claim that unlawful termination resulted in loss of benefits is not preempted by erisa
C: holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa
D: holding that erisa completely preempted certain state law claims and finding that erisa preempted an employees common law tort and contract claim when the employee sought benefits under the employers disability policy
B.