Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to the Title AHI claim); and 4) citation to deposition testimony wherein Plaintiff admits her inability to produce evidence that Hooper knew about the allegations of sexual harassment. Neither this record evidence nor Defendants’ arguments below or on appeal adequately address Plaintiffs allegations against each specific Defendant. With regard to Cacioppo, Defendants did not directly address Plaintiffs claim that after she rejected the “unwelcome[d] sexual advances, Cacioppo repeatedly denigrated her work performance, harassed and beleaguered her, and such actions ultimately le[d] to and [were] the proximate cause of Palmer being discharged from her employment of 13 years.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 2; see also Madden v. Chattanooga City Wide Serv. Dep’t, 549 F.3d 666, 677 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Stroh Cos., Inc., 952 F.2d 942, 946 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously (B) holding that an employers decision to terminate the plaintiff based on information supplied by a supervisor satisfies the causation requirement (C) holding that although physicians letter requesting an accommodation for disabled employee came after employers decision to terminate employer should have reconsidered the decision to terminate his employment (D) holding that plaintiff satisfies causation by showing that in absence of defendants negligence she would have obtained abortion (E) holding that an employers decision to terminate and individuals employment based on race is a violation of title vii regardless of whether that person is white or black
Output (English): holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously