With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of either the parties’ contractual expectations or the duties established by Wash . denied, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 806, 151 L.Ed.2d 692 (2002). 10 . Id.at 691. 11 . Id.at 691-92. 12 . Id. at 689. 13 . WASH. REV. CODE § 49.60.180. 14 . WASH. ADMIN. CODE § 162-22-025(2). 15 . WASH. ADMIN. CODE 162-22-065. 16 . Pulcino v. Fed. Express Corp., 141 Wash.2d 629, 9 P.3d 787, 795 (2000). 17 . Livadas, 512 U.S. at 124 n. 18, 114 S.Ct. 2068. 18 . CBA Art. 15, § 15.2 (emphasis added). 19 . Allis-Chalmers, 471 U.S. at 212, 105 S.Ct. 1904("[I]t would be inconsistent with congressional intent under [§ 301] to preempt state rules that proscribe conduct, or establish rights and obligations, independent of a labor contract.”). 20 . 486 U.S. at 408-09, 108 S.Ct. 1877. 21 . Id. at 412-13, 108 S.Ct. 1877 (<HOLDING>). 22 . Id. at 402, 108 S.Ct. 1877. 23 . Id. at

A: holding that the mere fact that a cba contains antidiscrimination provisions regulating conduct that also violates state law does not render the state law dependent on the terms of the contract
B: holding pennsylvania statute regulating subrogation is a law regulating insurance
C: holding that  502a operated to preempt state law claims despite the fact that the law in question may have been exempt from  514a preemption as a law regulating insurance
D: recognizing validity of state antidiscrimination provisions
A.