Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): more. For Vernace and Barlin, the spilled drink was not entirely personal: They were uninvolved; they were not there. We certainly did not hold in Bruno that a jury must find that all predicate acts with a personal dimension are unrelated to a charged RICO conspiracy. As to the other factual similarities with Bruno that Vernace draws on, the jury could have rejected the weight that Ver- nace now assigns to that evidence. The fact that the three participants in the Shamrock Murders were only Gambino associates and not inducted soldiers was not dispositive. We look at the criminal activities in which alleged participants in the racketeering enterprise engage, not merely the labels that the enterprise uses to describe them. See United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 289-90 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, the evidence that the murders were 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that significant criminal activity engaged in on behalf of the family by associates who were not made members could support rico liability (B) holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim (C) holding that student plaintiffs could bring retaliation claims where they were allegedly retaliated against for complaints made by their parents on their behalf and noting that ollier allowed the same and that thompson allowed a retaliation claim by a plaintiff who was fired because his fiancee who was also his coworker engaged in protected activity and firing him was intended to harp her (D) holding that a claim for civil damages based on alleged violation of criminal statute under which criminal penalties result was properly dismissed because criminal violations are brought not in the name of the individual party but rather by and on behalf of the state of ohio or its subdivisions (E) holding an anonymous tip insufficient to support reasonable suspicion based on the fact that defendant was suspected of drug activity in his community failed to corroborate he currently was engaged in drug related activity and surveillance failed to uncover any independent information that defendant was engaged in any criminal activity
Output (English): holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim