TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
PROBLEM: Erickson-Puttmann concedes that her Title VII claim against Gill fails because Gill was not her employer. See e.g., Bonomolo-Hagen v. Clay Central-Everly Community Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 446, 447 (8th Cir.1997) (“Our Court quite recently has squarely held that supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII.” (citing Spencer v. Ripley County State Bank, 123 F.3d 690, 691-92 (8th Cir.1997) (per cu-riam))). Lenhardt v. Basic Inst, of Tech., Inc., 55 F.3d 377, 381 (8th Cir.1995) (noting that “[e]very circuit that has considered the issue ultimately has concluded that an employee, even one possessing supervisory authority, is not an employer upon whom liability can be imposed under Title VII.”); Smith v. St. Bernards Reg'l Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the court concludes that summary 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii (B) holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii (C) holding individual employees may be liable under title vii (D) holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii (E) holding that there is no individual liability under title vii

SOLUTION: (D)

PROBLEM: ... clearly does not rise to the level of constitutional error when the failure was correct as a matter of state law.” 593 F.2d at 267. He noted also that “the highest court of Kentucky expressly held that the state trial court did not err in refusing to give the requested lesser included offense instruction.” I do not find any error in this conclusion. Shortly after this court decided Pilón, however, the Supreme Court invalidated on due process grounds an Alabama law which forbade the jury to consider a verdict of guilt of a lesser included offense in a capital case when the evidence would have supported such a verdict. Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). See also Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605, 611, 102 S.Ct. 2049, 2052, 72 L.Ed.2d 367 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Beck was concerned with imposition of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction (B) holding that beck requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given when the evidence warrants such an instruction as a matter of due process in a capital case (C) holding that due process does not require a lesser included offense instruction of manslaughter where not requested (D) holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given (E) holding that a lesser included offense instruction might be constitutionally required in capital cases because of their unique nature

SOLUTION: (B)

PROBLEM: express an intention different from its clear meaning.”). No Exclusion from SPMS in Business Regulation § 11-207 The administrative law judge based his opposite conclusion on several factors. First, he compared BR §§ 11-206 and 11-207. He concluded that the “staff’ authorized by § 11-206, who were expressly included in the SPMS, were to be contrasted with the “additional employees,” who were not so included. We must reject this reasoning. SPP § 6-302 does not require that executive branch state employees be specifically included in the SPMS. The presumption is that they are so included. Rather, it requires that employees not to be included in the SPMS be explicitly excluded from the system. Cf. State Admin. Bd. of Election Laws v. Billhimer, 72 Md.App. 578, 586-87, 531 A.2d 1298 (1987) (<HOLDING>), rev’d, on other grounds, 314 Md. 46, 548 A.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state (B) holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment (C) holding that under the old state employment merit system all employees of the state are deemed classified unless they have been specifically exempted form that category (D) holding that the statute plainly exempted  all employees who were covered by the flsa before january 1 2007 (E) holding that antecedent debts will not be deemed within a dragnet clause unless they are specifically identified in the instrument

SOLUTION:
(C)