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.

It is axiomatic, however, that states act through their officials and agencies. Thus, under Will, those state agencies and other political subdivisions which carry out the state’s business and have immunity from lawsuits under the Eleventh Amendment constitute “arms of the state.” Pursuant to Will, such entities would not be considered persons under § 1983. Those political subdivisions which are not provided immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, do not rise to the level of “arms of the state” and would, under Will, be considered to be persons for the purposes of § 1983. See Barket, Levy & Fine v. St. Louis Thermal Energy Corp., 948 F.2d 1084, 1086-88 (8th Cir.1991) (bi-state agency is a “person” under § 1983); Magula v. Broward Gen. Medical Ctr., 742 F.Supp. 645, 649 (S.D.Fla.1990) (<HOLDING>). Since the Will decision was handed down, a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment (B) holding that an ohio school district is more like a county or city than it is like an arm of the state and therefore it is not entitled to assert eleventh amendment immunity from suit (C) holding that the anne arundel board of education is an arm of the state for purposes of eleventh amendment immunity (D) holding that the puc is not an arm of the state and rejecting claim of immunity (E) holding that because hospital district is more like a municipality than an arm of the state hospital district did not have eleventh amendment immunity
holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment

opportunity to be heard on the issue ofrepayment of unemployment benefits. {32} The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a due pr e Court of Appeals of Minnesota that distinguish Schulte where the Court ultimately held that there was no constitutional violation when the employee did participate in the hearing. See Comm ’r of Nat. Res. v. Nicollet Cty.Pub. Water/Wetlands Hearings Unit, 633 N.W.2d 25, 30 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (affirming an appellate denial of the appellant’s due process claim based on constitutionally valid notice of the hearing because the appellant knew the potential consequences of a reversal of the initial decision and participated in the appeal with counsel); see also Aubin v. Family Dollar, Inc., No. A14-0483, 2014 WL 6724937, at *4-5 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2014) (<HOLDING>); Koch v. Sheldahl, No. A03-1562, 2004 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that sentencing court did not violate defendants due process rights when it reasonably refused to recall a witness for crossexamination (B) holding that it is not (C) holding that doctrine does not violate due process (D) holding that online system of appeals did not violate due process rights because it was not affirmatively misleading and it adequately explained the potential consequences of failing to file a timely appeal citations omitted (E) holding that on summary judgment a court may not disregard evidence merely because it serves the interests of the party introducing it citations omitted
holding that sentencing court did not violate defendants due process rights when it reasonably refused to recall a witness for crossexamination

F.Supp. 1424, 1426 & 1427 n. 3 (S.D.Fla.1993). The district court correctly determined that “the statute of limitations was tolled on Rothmeier’s whistleblower claim while the age discrimination claim was pending in federal court.” B. Prima facie case. Rothmeier failed to establish the first element of a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge because the record contains no evidence that he engaged in statutorily protected conduct. See Hubbard, 330 N.W.2d at 444. Whether a plaintiff made a report in “good faith” is a question of fact. McDonald v. Stonebraker, 255 N.W.2d 827, 831 (Minn.1977). Nevertheless, this court may determine as a matter of law that certain conduct does not constitute a “report.” See Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 474 N.W.2d 174, 180 (Minn.App.1991) (<HOLDING>), ajfd, 479 N.W.2d 58 (Minn.1992). Rothmeier 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge (B) holding that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority in support of an argument in his appellate brief (C) holding that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts in his complaint to state a claim for wrongful discharge where he alleged he was discharged due to his political affiliation and activities (D) holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension (E) holding that appellant failed to state a claim of retaliatory discharge where the record showed he merely gave his supervisor feedback and did not report alleged violations to any outside authority

recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge