Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that he had been discriminated against when he was not selected for and promoted to a specialist position. Id. at 46. The plaintiff first attempted to lay venue in the District of Columbia as the location where the unlawful employment practice was alleged to have been committed. To support this argument he argued that “discriminatory activities, retaliation, and reprisal” had occurred at the District of Columbia location where he worked. Id. at 46 n. 3. However, the court determined that the plaintiff could not rely on this first statutory basis for venue. Because the plaintiff was complaining about his failure to be promoted, the court determined that under the first statutory basis for venue, Virginia was where “[t]he selections for the positions that plaintiff sought were made.” Id. (<HOLDING>). Here, McLaughlin made the selection decisions 
 Holding statements: (A) holding in the context of a prosecution for second degree escape that although defendant was not handcuffed he had nonetheless been placed under arrest had had his liberty restrained in that he was not free to leave and at that point the first step in the process of transporting him to the police station had begun consequently the defendants arrest was complete and he was in custody (B) holding that the proper measure of damages was the present value of all unaccrued payments that the plaintiff would have received if the contract had been performed (C) holding that the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the district of columbia (D) holding however that venue was proper under the third statutory basis because it was likely that had plaintiff received one of the positions he sought he would have been assigned to work in the district of columbia at some point (E) holding that the plaintiff has a good faith basis to believe a putative defendant may be a district of columbia resident if a geolocation service places his her ip address within the district of columbia or within a city located within 30 miles of the district of columbia
Output (English): holding that the proper measure of damages was the present value of all unaccrued payments that the plaintiff would have received if the contract had been performed