With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 884 F.2d 116, 120 (4th Cir.1989). Accordingly, ERISA preemption has not been limited to state laws specifically designed to affect employee benefit plans. See Shaw, 463 U.S. at 98-99, 103 S.Ct. at 2900-01 (ERISA preempted New York’s Human Rights Law and Disability Benefits Law because it “related to” an employee benefit plan within the meaning of § 1144(a)). The expansiveness of § 1144(a) notwithstanding, ERISA preemption plainly has limits. As the Supreme Court has clearly stated, “[s]ome state actions may affect employee benefit plans in too tenuous, remote, or peripheral a manner to warrant a finding that the law ‘relates to’ the plan.” Shaw, 463 U.S. at 100 n. 21, 103 S.Ct. at 2901 n. 21. See also, e.g., Ingersoll-Rand, 498 U.S. at -, 111 S.Ct. at 483 (<HOLDING>); Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service,

A: holding removal and preemption are distinct concepts erisa preemption does not allow removal unless complete preemption exists
B: recognizing limits on the erisa preemption clause
C: holding the economic effects that  claims might have on erisa plans are not sufficient for preemption to occur
D: holding that  502a may serve as an independent basis for preemption where  514a the blanket erisa preemption provision is inapplicable
B.