Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support the verdict awarding Hinton $10,000 in back pay. REVERSED and REMANDED for reinstatement of the jury’s verdict. THOMPSON and TORPY, JJ„ concur. 1 . Interestingly, the federal circuit courts are not in agreement on the issue of whether a claim under Title VII's participation clause must be filed in “good faith". Some courts have held that charges made under both the opposition clause and the participation clause include a reasonable, good faith requirement. See Mattson. Other federal courts have held that a plaintiff merely has to file a charge with the EEOC, regardless of whether it was filed in good faith or not, to be protected under the participation clause. See Johnson v. University of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The Eleventh Circuit has refused to decide 
 Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiff must make concrete showing of a prima facie claim of actionable harm denying motion to quash subpoena to undercover identity of doe defendants where inter alia plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to show it could establish prima facie claim (B) holding that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under title vii must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she engaged in a protected activity that she was subjected to an adverse employment action by her employer and that there was a causal link between the two (C) holding to establish a claim of retaliation under title viis participation clause plaintiff must make a prima facie case by showing that defendants discharged him because he filed a claim with the eeoc (D) holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 (E) holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct
Output (English): holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct