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: objectively by a reasonable person. Cooper v. Albacore Holdings, Inc., 204 S.W.3d 238, 244-45 (Mo.App.E.D.2006). Here, the trial court found that the Employer’s alleged conduct was not sufficient as a matter of law to objectively establish severe or pervasive hostility based on a disability. Whether “a reasonable person would objectively consider [an employer’s] behavior towards [a claimant] severe enough to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment” is a question of fact. Cooper, 204 S.W.3d at 245; see also Howard, 149 F.3d at 840; 37 William C established, whether a reasonable person would similarly find the conduct offensive will generally be a question of fact for the jury. Cf. Meyerkord v. Zipatoni Co., 276 S.W.3d 319, 326 (Mo.App.E.D.2008) (<HOLDING>); Y.G. v. Jewish Hasp, of St. Louis, 795 S.W.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave (B) holding that whether misrepresentations would be highly offensive to a reasonable person are questions for a jury (C) holding that questions of proximate cause are within the exclusive domain for the jury and may only be removed when reasonable minds cannot differ (D) holding in determining whether driver was insured under terms of policy exclusion of person using vehicle without a reasonable belief person was entitled to do so must be considered (E) holding that whether an encounter is consensual hinges on whether a reasonable person would have felt free to disregard the police and go about his business

SOLUTION: holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave

PROBLEM: for [her] employer! ] to operate efficiently and effectively.” Id. at 418-19, 126 S.Ct. 1951. The point of this inquiry, then, is “both to promote the individual and societal interests that are served when employees speak as citizens on matters of public concern and to respect the needs of government employers attempting to perform their im portant public functions.” Id. at 420, 126 S.Ct. 1951. With that premise as a backdrop, the Supreme Court held that “when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” Id. at 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951; see also Haynes v. City of Circleville, 474 F.3d 357, 364-65 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Garcetti and its Sixth Circuit progeny 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs speech was not constitutionally protected because it was made in his official capacity and there was simply no evidence that he was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern (B) holding that pursuant to garcetti plaintiffs speech made in the course of his official duties was unprotected as a matter of law (C) holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties (D) holding that garcetti barred claims involving speech not necessarily required by the plaintiffs job duties but nevertheless  related to his job duties (E) holding that when protected speech is inextricable from unprotected speech the court will treat the entire message as protected

SOLUTION: holding that the plaintiffs speech was not constitutionally protected because it was made in his official capacity and there was simply no evidence that he was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern

PROBLEM: of the state action is sought. First, federal courts handling in personam cases have generally limited their decisions to enjoin state court proceedings to MDLs or complex national class actions. “Under an appropriate set of facts, a federal court entertaining complex litigation, especially when it involves a substantial class of persons from multiple states, or represents a consolidation of cases from multiple districts, may appropriately enjoin state court proceedings in order to protect its jurisdiction.” Diet Drugs I, 282 F.3d at 235. In fact, several courts have declined to enjoin state court proceedings specifically because the federal action did not involve an MDL or a certified class action. See Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 523 F.3d 1091, 1103 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Gooch, 589 F.3d at 330-31 (declining to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there was no record of a hearing about settlement objections (B) holding that because the alleged settlement was never approved by the court under rule 9019 the settlement agreement was unenforceable (C) holding that the commissions approval of a nonunanimous settlement agreement did not violate intervenors due process rights because the record shows that the appellant presented arguments in opposition to the settlement during the agenda conference in which the appellant was allowed thirty minutes to present its views in opposition to the settlement agreement (D) holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations (E) holding that an injunction was inappropriate because this was not an mdl case discovery was not complete no class settlement was imminent in fact as far as the record shows no serious settlement progress had been made

SOLUTION:
holding that there was no record of a hearing about settlement objections