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.

[Q]: the harassment,” Murray, 57 F.3d at 250. As the Second Circuit has recognized, “not every response to a complaint should take the form of discharge;” even a mere written warning can be an appropriate response if it conveys the message that further harassment will not be tolerated. Kotcher, 957 F.2d at 63; see also Torres, 116 F.3d at 639 (“[R]esolution will vary from case to case.”). By far the best evidence that Metro-North’s response was effective is that plaintiff has not been sexually harassed by Chapman or any other Metro-North employee since meeting with Ms. Gormley-O’Connor, see Wahlstrom Dep. at 30, 248, nor has Chapman been accused of accosting any other employees since returning from his suspension, see Chapman Dep. at 64, 279; Sinigiani Dep. at 49; cf. Murray, 57 F.3d at 251 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, while factual issues exist as to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that eeoc charge filed by plaintiff more than 180 days after alleged incident of sexual harassment was timely where alleged sexual harassment violation continued as hostile work environment through time of plaintiffs termination (B) holding that where the plaintiffs allegations concerning a hostile work environment consist of facts that occurred more than one year before the filing of the complaint such a claim is timebarred (C) holding that allegations of failure to remedy a hostile work environment provided no basis for relief where the evidence demonstrated that the harassment had ended by the time plaintiffs complaint was filed (D) holding that the allegations of plaintiffs coemployees of sexual harassment by manager were irrelevant to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of the alleged harassment (E) holding that a charge that alleged discrimination on the basis of sex did not support a complaint for hostile environment sexual harassment
[A]: holding that eeoc charge filed by plaintiff more than 180 days after alleged incident of sexual harassment was timely where alleged sexual harassment violation continued as hostile work environment through time of plaintiffs termination


[Q]: to facilitate William’s pick ups and returns of the children. The record reflects that Lacey, out of distrust, often would record her interactions with William. William admitted that he routinely avoids interaction with Lacey unless necessary. After reviewing the record under the applicable standard of review, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the circumstances of the children or a conservator have materially and substantially changed since rendition of the divorce decree and that it is in the children’s best interests to modify the decree to give Lacey the exclusive right to consent to psychiatric and psychological treatment of the children. See Swaab v. Swaab, 282 S.W.3d 519, 534 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (<HOLDING>); Baltzer, 240 S.W.3d at 477 (holding that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction (B) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting mother the exclusive right to consent to all psychiatric and psychological treatment of the child (C) holding district court did not abuse its discretion in not granting plaintiffs leave to amend complaint for a third time (D) holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial (E) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing the surname of the child where the court made factual findings that the name change would be in the best interest of the child
[A]: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction


[Q]: that whether an investigation is criminal or not has no impact on whether a false statement made to a government official may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The district court sustained the government’s relevance objection as to Jimenez’s testimony that Agent Hays allegedly offered that she could return to Mexico without arrest. Jimenez contends that this testimony was relevant to show her state of mind. The government argues that this testimony was properly excluded as irrelevant. However, this evidence does appear to be admissible to impeach Agent Hays’s testimony that he made no such offer. Testimony that would tend to impeach the government’s main witness, if believed by the jury, is relevant and admissible. See United States v. Davis, 639 F.2d 239, 244-45 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). This error was not of constitutional 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care (B) holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative (C) holding that the district court exceeded its discretion in excluding testimony proffered to discredit the key government witness (D) holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony to only one witness where additional witnesses would have provided the same testimony (E) holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony
[A]:
holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care