With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Llanez-Garcia, 735 F.3d 483, 498 (6th Cir.2013). A large body of casé law interpreting the governmental plan exclusion confirms that “governmental plans”' constitute a type of employee benefit' plan, not a separate Category. See," e.g., Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236, 242 (2d Cir.2004) (“Title I of ERISA specifically excludes from its coverage any employee benefit plan that is a governmental plan.”); Shirley v. Maxicare Tex., Inc., 921 F.2d 565, 567 (5th Cir.1991) (“Under 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b), however, ERISA shall not apply to any employee benefit plan if such plan is a governmental plan,”); Lovelace v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 775 F.Supp. 228, 229 (S.D.Ohio 1991) (“ERISA regulates employee benefit plans, such as the [public s 791, 1996 WL 648720, at *1-4 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 4, 1996) (<HOLDING>). This analytical leap to the governmental plan

A: holding that state law relates to an employee benefit plan and is therefore preempted by erisa if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan
B: holding that county governments healthcare plan qualified for governmental plan exclusion
C: holding that disability plan established by state university for benefit of employees qualified for governmental plan exclusion
D: holding that employee benefit plan sponsored by two participating employers  cook county and the cook county forest preserve district  qualified for governmental plan exclusion
D.