Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in employment discrimination cases,” citing Haglof v. Northwest Rehabilitation, Inc., 910 F.2d 492, 495 (8th Cir.1990); Hillebrand, 827 F.2d at 364). Summary judgment is appropriate in employment discrimination cases only in “those rare instances where there is no dispute of fact and where there exists only one conclusion.” Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244; see also Webb v. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 51 F.3d 147, 148 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244); Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341 (quoting Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244). To put it another way, “[b]e-cause discrimination cases often depend on inferences rather than on direct evidence, summary judgment should not be granted unless the evidence could not support any reasonable inference for the non-movant.” Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341 (<HOLDING>); accord Snow, 128 F.3d at 1205 (“Because 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact (B) holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment (C) holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate (D) holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment (E) holding that an eeoc reasonable cause determination letter did not constitute evidence precluding summary judgment when the other evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact
Output (English): holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact