With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". employs in cases involving § 301” and quoting the Lueck passage quoted above); Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 123-24, 114 S.Ct. 2068, 2078, 129 L.Ed.2d 93 (1994) (“it is the legal character of a claim, as independent of rights created under the collective-bargaining agreement, that decides whether a state cause of action may go forward”) (citation omitted). To determine whether a claim is preempted, and hence removable, the Supreme Court has said that “an application of state law is pre-empted by § 301 ... if such application requires the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement.” Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, 486 U.S. 399, 413, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 1885, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988) (em phasis added); Shafii v. British Airways, PLC, 83 F.3d 566, 569-70 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) (quota? tion omitted). However, the Lingle

A: holding that the iccta preempted statelaw tortiousinterference claim
B: holding that a statelaw claim is preempted and removable from state court if resolution of the claim depends on an interpretation of the collectivebargaining agreement
C: holding that a wrongful discharge claim based on violation of a state public policy is not preempted because it is a nonnegotiable independent statelaw right
D: holding that if the resolution of a statelaw claim depends upon the meaning of a collectivebargaining agreement the application of state law  is preempted and federal laborlaw principles  necessarily uniform throughout the nation  must be  employed to resolve the dispute
B.