Task: Text Completion
Input (English): was never good history and is no longer good law.”). 8 . Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89, 94, 99 S.Ct. 399, 58 L.Ed.2d 354 (1978). 9 . Norris, 512 U.S. at 252-53, 114 S.Ct. 2239 (quoting 45 U.S.C. § 151a) (emphasis added). 10 . Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299, 305, 109 S.Ct. 2477, 105 L.Ed.2d 250 (1989); see also Anderson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir.1993) (citing id.). 11 . Norris, 512 U.S. at 265, 114 S.Ct. 2239. 12 . Saridakis v. United Airlines, 166 F.3d 1272, 1276 (9th Cir.1999). 13 . Norris, 512 U.S. at 264 n. 10, 114 S.Ct. 2239 (quoting Conrail, 491 U.S. at 311-12, 109 S.Ct. 2477). 14 . Id. at 264, 114 S.Ct. 2239. 15 . Id. at 264 n. 10, 114 S.Ct. 2239 (quoting Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R 171 (1st Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 62 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding section 301 preempted plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with contract because that claim would require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement (B) holding that the present controversy concerns the plaintiffs rights under state and federal statutes which exist independently of the collective bargaining agreement and do not require interpretation of that agreement (C) holding that antidiscrimination rights under title vii cannot be waived by a collective bargaining agreement (D) holding that plaintiffs retaliatory discharge claim was not completely preempted and noting that state court on remand would have to apply federal law to remaining issues requiring interpretation of collective bargaining agreement (E) holding that an arbitrators interpretation of the scope of the issue submitted to him is entitled to the same deference accorded his interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement
Output (English): (B)