Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Martinez: When my dad passed away, I was holding his hand. He passed away holding my hand and I knew that I had to go on with my life because that’s part of life. You know, go on. But when we got down to SCI to my dad [sic], it’s not part of my life. I didn’t have to accept that and I did not accept it and I won’t accept it. Gracie Little: It’s the same thing as my mother and my sisters. We’re not at peace. We’re always wondering. You know, we were always wondering where our father was. It was very hard to hear how this company stole our father from his grave and moved him. That was hard. And I pray none of you have to go through this. We conclude that appellees presented direct evidence of Mrs. Guerra’s mental anguish. See Fifth Club, Inc. v. Ramirez, 196 S.W.3d 788, 797-98 (Tex.2006) (<HOLDING>); Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561, 606-07 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs own testimony that he was embarrassed and humiliated by defendants conduct was sufficient to support compensatory damages award (B) holding trial court should not have granted summary judgment to employer when employee offered evidence a company security officer falsely accused him of stealing a calculator and coerced him into signing a confession resulting in his loss of his job not fear for his life like gantt and loss of sleep for weeks not still reoccurring nightmares like gantt (C) holding that plaintiffs testimony that he was depressed humiliated unable to sleep and suffered from headaches and nightmares was sufficient (D) holding that a title vii plaintiffs testimony that her employment discharge resulted in sleep loss smoking and weight loss was sufficient to support an award of 100000 in compensatory damages (E) holding that we could not weigh the prejudice suffered as a result of the exclusion of plaintiffs testimony because we had no way of knowing what the plaintiffs testimony would have been
Output (English): holding that we could not weigh the prejudice suffered as a result of the exclusion of plaintiffs testimony because we had no way of knowing what the plaintiffs testimony would have been