With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CBA generally provides for a similar right. See Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). In Balcorta, we held that a California law requiring employers to pay certain employees in the film industry within twenty-four hours of their discharge was not preempted by LMRA § 301. Id. The right to payment and the timeliness of the payments were addressed by the CBA, but we concluded the claim for failure to tender payment within twenty-four hours was not preempted because “whether a violation has occurred is controlled only by the provisions of the state statute and does not turn on whether the payment was timely under the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.” Id. at 1111; see also Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). Like the rights at issue in Livadas, Ko-bold,

A: holding that plaintiffs state law claim against a nonsignatory to the cba was preempted by  301
B: recognizing the right to waive a jury trial
C: holding claim was not preempted where it was based on a statutorily guaranteed right to workfree meal periods even though the cba purported to waive the right to workfree meal periods
D: holding that plaintiffs retaliatory discharge claim under michigan law was not preempted because the statelaw tort of retaliatory discharge creates rights independent of those established by the collective bargaining agreement further holding that discrimination claim was not preempted even though the employer was likely to rely on provisions of the cba in its defense
C.