Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to seek applicants from persons with complainant's qualifications. McDonnell, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817.; see also Okoye v. Univ. of Tex. Houston Health Sci. Ctr., 245 F.3d 507, 512-13 (5th Cir.2001) (addressing a racial discrimination claim). 16 . McDonnell, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817. 17 . McMillian v. Svetanoff, 878 F.2d 186, 189 (7th Cir.1989) (noting that "[a]n employer, even a public employer ... is free to choose among qualified candidates so long as that choice is not based on unlawful criteria”) (citing Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 259, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1097, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981)). 18 . See Deines v. Tex. Dep't Protective & Regulatory Servs., 164 F.3d 277, 282 (5th Cir.1999). Price v. Fed. Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715, 723 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 19 . 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301-6578. 20 . Price, 283 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established (B) holding that expert was qualified to testify regarding sexuallyabused children based on witness education professional license and experience (C) holding that better education work experience and longer tenure with the company do not establish that an applicant is clearly better qualified (D) holding plaintiff with nineteen years experience as hospital assistant and bachelors and masters degrees to be significantly better qualified for pharmacy technician position than applicant with no college education and two months relevant experience (E) holding that the applicant failed to satisfy the statute because the applicant did not have an ownership right or access right to the reservoir site
Output (English): holding that the applicant failed to satisfy the statute because the applicant did not have an ownership right or access right to the reservoir site