Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): at 334 (citing 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4434, 4441-42); see also Putnam, 833 F.2d at 904-05 (dismissal for failure to serve within time period may operate as dismissal with prejudice when action will be time-barred); Townsel v. County of Contra Costa, 820 F.2d 319, 321 (9th Cir.1987) (stating that Congress “balanced the possible loss of a litigant’s federal cause of action against the need to encourage diligent prosecution of lawsuits.”); Lovelace v. Acme Markets, Inc., 820 F.2d 81, 85 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 965, 108 S.Ct. 455, 98 L.Ed.2d 395 (1987) (determining that even though dismissal could spell end of plaintiffs cause of action, inadvertence and lack of diligence could not be excused in light of legislative intent for strict interpretation of Rule 4(j)); Wei 763 F.2d at 372 (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, Plaintiffs Original 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii (B) recognizing that action will be timebarred under title vii if dismissed under rule 4j (C) holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii (D) holding individual employees may be liable under title vii (E) holding that there is no individual liability under title vii
Output (English): holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii