Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to be exactly the same as that of the RJPod. In any event, more significant than whether the work is commercial in nature is whether the Defendant’s use was “trans-formative:” “The central purpose of this investigation is to see ... whether the new work merely supercedes the objects of the original creation, ... or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579, 114 S.Ct. 1164 (internal citations, brackets, and citations omitted). The Court considers whether the Defendant’s use of the Floor Plan merely superceded the object of the originals or instead added a further purpose of different character. Id.; cf. Nunez v. Caribbean Int’l News Corp., 235 F.3d 18 (1st Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The Defendant submits that the RP-Floor Plan, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the same types of evidence used to prove a title vii claim also may be used to prove a  1983 claim (B) holding that newspaper articles were inadmissible hearsay when used to prove that the defendant made the statements attributed to him in the article (C) holding that the application of the enhancement for using a firearm in connection with another felony offense is proper only if there is a clear connection between the firearm that was used in the other offense and the one that was used in the offense of conviction (D) holding that when a photograph that was intended to be used in a modeling portfolio was used instead in a news article the work was transformed into news (E) holding that a hostile work environment was sufficient to constitute constructive discharge because the harassment was expressed by the plaintiffs supervisor and the offending language was not only used in the plaintiffs presence but was directed at him
Output (English): holding that a hostile work environment was sufficient to constitute constructive discharge because the harassment was expressed by the plaintiffs supervisor and the offending language was not only used in the plaintiffs presence but was directed at him