With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". proceedings under state statutes prohibiting sexual, racial, religious or similar discriminatory employment practices are preempted. Most of the pertinent state court decisions are in accord with the conclusion in Vaughn that the NLRA does not preempt proceedings under state statutes prohibiting employment discrimination on such bases. See, e.g., Bald v. RCA Alascom, 569 P2d 1328 (Alas 1977), and cases there cited; Walker Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Comm., 27 Wis 2d 669, 135 NW 2d 307 (1965). In Bald, the Alaska court indicated that the NLRA is not centrally concerned with those forms of discrimination. 569 P2d at 1334; see also McDonald v. West Branch, 466 US 284, 289, 104 S Ct 1799, 80 L Ed 2d 302 (1984); Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Company, 415 US 36, 94 S Ct 1011, 39 L Ed 2d 147 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Defendants argue that Vaughn is

A: holding that an arbitrators decision in arbitration undertaken pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement is not binding on a plaintiff who pursues title vii remedies in court
B: holding that antidiscrimination rights under title vii cannot be waived by a collective bargaining agreement
C: holding that discharged black employe had right of action under title vii of civil rights act of 1964 42 usc  2000e et seq to assert discrimination claim notwithstanding arbitrators finding pursuant to collective bargaining agreement that employe was discharged for cause
D: holding that petitioners remedy under title vii of the civil rights act was in addition to remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement in force between his employer and his union
C.