Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Marietta Corp. v. Maryland Com’n on Human Relations, 38 F.3d 1392, 1397 (4th Cir.1994) (citing Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 211-12, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985)). 2 . With respect to Defendant's argument that determining whether Plaintiff held a “good faith, reasonable belief” that the uniform violated the DCHRA when she made her complaint would require interpretation of the CBA, see Def.'s Mot. at 8, the Court is not persuaded. To satisfy the first prong of a retaliation claim, the plaintiff must "demonstrate a good faith, reasonable belief” that the challenged action is unlawful under Title V II, and thus the DCHRA. See Welzel v. Bernstein, 436 F.Supp.2d 110, 118 (D.D.C.2006), accord Sullivan v. Catholic Univ. of Amer., 387 F.Supp.2d 11, 13 (D.D.C.2005) (<HOLDING>). However, this determination would not involve 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap (B) holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration (C) holding that in addressing employment claims under the dchra courts look to title vii jurisprudence (D) holding that title vii provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment (E) holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii
Output (English): recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap