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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
PROBLEM: unlawful harm under that public policy may include actions that violate recognized and accepted standards of conduct, such as applicable codes of ethics. The critical question in this case is whether under all of the surrounding circumstances MacDougall’s termination by Weiehert violated that clear mandate of public policy and was in retaliation for either his vote on the municipal parking ban ordinance or his refusal to change the ordinance. At the outset, we recognize that conduct that is directed against constitutionally-protected activity may violate a clear mandate of public policy, even though it may not offend any other statutory or legal standard. Supra at 390, 393, 677 A.2d at 167, 168. Compare Shovelin v. Central New Mexico Elec. Coop., Inc., 115 N.M. 293, 850 P.2d 996 (1993) (<HOLDING>) with Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 721 F.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy (B) recognizing public policy limits on employer discretion in discharging employees (C) holding public employees conduct and expression in internal investigation of employees at county prosecutors office to expose potential wrongdoing constituted matter of public concern (D) recognizing retaliatory discharge claim where employer prevented employees exercise of workers compensation rights because of employees intention to file claim (E) holding that the discharge of an employee hospitalized for illness did not violate public policy

SOLUTION: recognizing public policy limits on employer discretion in discharging employees

PROBLEM: from the OSHA inspection after this incident were for repeat offenses, the repeat offense that appears pertinent to this ease was the failure to mark a container of hazardous chemicals so as to identify the chemical. The prior citation for such an offense is not in the record, and we are unable to determine whether the “repeat” aspect of the citation pertains only to the type of citation or to the particular location of the offending container. In any event, our supreme court has not yet held that OSHA citations are evidence that compels the conclusion that a coemployee was substantially certain that injury or death would occur. In fact, in two cases involving OSHA citations, the court has held that such citations would not support that finding. See Ex parte Martin, 733 So.2d at 396 (<HOLDING>), and Harris v. Simmons, 585 So.2d 906, 908 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that witnesss testimony was sufficient to support the trial courts finding that defendant committed battery that resulted in bodily injury (B) holding postaccident citation not sufficient to support finding that coemployee was substantially certain that injury or death would occur (C) holding that preaccident citation would not support a finding that coemployees were substantially certain that injury or death would occur (D) holding evidence sufficient to support trial courts finding in aggravation that the offense was planned (E) holding governments position substantially justified where sufficient support existed in precedent

SOLUTION: holding that witnesss testimony was sufficient to support the trial courts finding that defendant committed battery that resulted in bodily injury

PROBLEM: Section 11; Iowa Code § 598.22 (1996 & 1998 Supp.); Michigan Child Support Formula Manual 5-6 (1998); Mont. Admin. R. 46.30.1542; N.J. Child Support Guidelines, Appx. IX-A; Utah Code Ann. § 78-45-7.5(8)(b) (1996 & 1997 Supp.); Wash. Rev.Code § 26.18.190(2) (1994); W. Va.Code § 48A-1B-9 (1996 & 1997 Supp.). See also State ex rel. Pfister v. Larson, 569 N.W.2d 512 (Iowa Ct.App.1997) (discussing availability of a statutory credit for social security disability dependency benefits received by a child); Herd v. Herd, 307 N.J.Super. 501, 704 A.2d 1340 (App.Div.1998) (reading Appendices IX-A and 1X-B so as to require a credit to the obligor parent for social security disability dependency bene fits received by child); Pasternak v. Pasternak, 310 N.J.Super. 483, 708 A.2d 1235 (Ch.Div.1997) (<HOLDING>); In re Marriage of Briscoe, 134 Wash.2d 344, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing doctrine (B) holding that the united states was a statutory employer under kansas law (C) recognizing statutory credit (D) recognizing that commission is not bound by statutory or common law rules of evidence (E) recognizing exception

SOLUTION:
recognizing doctrine