Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): whether Lamb unreasonably failed to avail herself of her employer’s remedies against sexual harassment. The City argues that Lamb was unreasonable in tailing to report what she perceived to be Peterson’s harassing remarks until months after they were actually made. The City also contends that Lamb failed to cooperate fully during the City’s investigation following her July 11 grievance. However, Lamb indicated that she did not report Peterson’s behavior immediately because she did not wish to cause trouble when she was relatively new to her job. Lamb Aff., ¶ 6. The Fifth Circuit has clarified that delay in reporting alone is not per se an "unreasonable failure” to take care. Watts, 170 F.3d at 510-11. But see Scrivner v. Socorro Independent School District, 169 F.3d 969 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). In addition, while Lamb was perhaps not as 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs legal malpractice claim was not ripe until the appeal had been exhausted because plaintiffs harm remained speculative until then (B) holding unreasonable plaintiffs failure to complain from the summer of 1995 until march 1996 (C) holding that definition in iowa code chapter 321 1995 was expressly confined to that chapter and did not apply to iowa code section 36412 1995 (D) holding similar allegations supported that the plaintiffs negligence claim did not accrue until plaintiffs loan payments exceeded his ability to pay (E) holding the 1995 amendment to section 5601c removed all rights to appeal from a section 5402 ruling
Output (English): holding that plaintiffs legal malpractice claim was not ripe until the appeal had been exhausted because plaintiffs harm remained speculative until then