Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): power to prohibit discrimination that is itself unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, and to regulate otherwise constitutional conduct through legislation that exhibits “congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and means adopted to that end.” Garrett, 531 U.S. at 365, 121 S.Ct. 955 (quoting City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 520, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997)). A number of courts have reconsidered, in light of these recent Supreme Court decisions, whether Congress validly abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment im munity in enacting Title VII. These courts have concluded that Title VII, including the retaliation provision, does indeed abrogate state sovereign immunity. See Warren v. Prejean, 301 F.3d 893, 899 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Nelson v. Kansas, 220 F.Supp.2d 1216, 1220-1 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff can prove illegal retaliation under   1981 in the same manner as he establishes retaliation under title vii (B) holding that title ii of the ada was a valid use of congress power under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment (C) holding that bankruptcy jurisdiction is not within section 5 of the fourteenth amendment (D) holding that the retaliation provision of title vii is an adequate exercise of congress authority under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment (E) holding title vii abrogates the eleventh amendment because it is based in fourteenth amendment which limits state authority in other ways as well
Output (English): holding that a plaintiff can prove illegal retaliation under   1981 in the same manner as he establishes retaliation under title vii