With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 334 F.3d 528, 538-39 (6th Cir.2003) (also noting that “[t]he wholly irrational standard is described in terms of extreme arbitrariness”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). To show “discriminatory” conduct sufficient to establish a breach of the duty of fair representation, a plaintiff must present “substantial evidence of ... intentional, severe” discrimination that is “unrelated to legitimate union objectives.” Amalgamated Ass’n of Street Elec. Ry , 457 (2d Cir.1979) (noting that “it was almost inevitable that the union’s drawing of a line would hurt someone” and “although it is unfortunate that ... the ultimate harm fell on appellants, drawing the line elsewhere would ... have caused harm to others”); Forte v. Warehouse Employees Local 169, 2000 WL 377698, *3 (E.D.Pa.) (<HOLDING>); see also Ratkosky, supra, 843 F.2d at 878-79

A: holding that union did not breach its duty of fair representation when it accepted a contract that provided severance pay for some active workers but not for laid off workers who were recalled
B: holding that sixmonth limitations period established in delcostello applies to a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation brought only against a union
C: holding that sixmonth duty of fair representation statute of limitations applicable to claim alleging breach of union contract
D: holding that unions interpretation of a contractual provision necessarily favorfing some workers over others did not violate the duty of fair representation
A.