With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Compensation Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.301(11). The specific provision that Plaintiff relies on states: A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under this act or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of himself or herself or others of a right afforded by this act. Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.301(11). Although this language is within Michigan’s workers’ compensation scheme, the state of Michigan’s definition of “workmen’s compensation laws” does not control for purposes of the § 1445(c) limitation. To determine if Plaintiffs claim is one “arising under” the state’s “workmen’s compensation laws,” the court must look to fede Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), Suder v. Blue Circle, Inc., 116 F.3d 1351

A: holding that  255111 claim does not arise under alabamas workers compensation laws
B: holding that texas cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws
C: holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws
D: holding that illinois cause of action for retaliation does not arise under its workers compensation laws
C.