Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): or threatened to be removed from a religious community sued the responsible state social service employees, claiming religious discrimination in violation of their free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection rights. In response, the employees moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and proffered evidence showing that the children were being mistreated. On appeal of the district court’s denial of that motion, we assumed that the employees were motivated in part by substantial prejudice, but held that they nonetheless were entitled to qualified immunity since their conduct was “objectively reasonable” in light of the doctrines enunciated in Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 284-87, 97 S.Ct. 568, 574-76, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977)(<HOLDING>); and Village of Arlington Hts. v. Metropolitan 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a state official can be held individually hable under  1983 for acts taken within the scope of his or her official duties (B) holding that state official can act lawfully even when motivated by hostility toward a certain protected class (C) holding that the official charged with responsibility to act must be an official within the doj with the authority to act in the circumstances (D) holding that state official can act lawfully even when motivated by a dislike for protected behavior (E) holding that the question of whether a municipal official is a policymaking official is a matter of state law to be decided by the court
Output (English): holding that state official can act lawfully even when motivated by hostility toward a certain protected class