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


[Q]: matter. When it is clear, however, from the relevant parts of the contract taken together and considered with the facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement, that the obligation in question was within the contemplation of the parties or was necessary to effect their intention, then such obligation may be implied and enforced. But when the contract between the parties speaks to the obligation sought to be implied, the courts will not write that implied obligation into the contract. Stated conversely, there may be an implied covenant on the part of the lessee (in the absence of any expressed on the subject as in the lease).[ ] Id. (citations, alterations, and quotation omitted). See also Nearburg v. Yates Petroleum Corp., 123 N.M. 526, 943 P.2d 560, 569 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in accordance with New Mexico law, any 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that endorsement would prevail if inconsistent with policy provisions (B) holding that courts cannot imply covenants which are inconsistent with express provisions (C) holding that state courts may not enforce racially restrictive covenants (D) holding that the restrictive covenants at issue are unenforceable as a matter of public policy (E) holding that the law will not imply a contract where there is an existing express contract covering the same subject matter
[A]: recognizing that endorsement would prevail if inconsistent with policy provisions


[Q]: cannot be waived); 2 Moore’s, supra, § 8.07[3] (noting that affirmative defenses are, waivable); see also Denver & Rio Grande W.R. Co. v. Blackett, 538 F.2d 291, 294 (10th Cir.1976) (“[T]he application of affirmative defenses offer[s] no jurisdictional question.”)- While it is true, as Sanborn points out, that Colorado courts have barred civil suits against employers when workers’ compensation was available, in none of these cases did the parties dispute the existence of the state law bar, as they have done in the current case. See, e.g., Kandt v. Evans, 645 P.2d 1300, 1305-06 (Colo.1982) (affirming grant of summary judgment because plaintiff had already received workers’ compensation benefits and the fact that plaintiff was ac gomery LC, Inc., 942 P.2d 1230, 1234 (Colo.Ct.App.1996) (<HOLDING>); cf. Massie v. Godfather’s Pizza, Inc., 844 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the issue of foreseeability should be submitted to the jury where reasonable persons might differ (B) holding that new york common law must be applied to determine whether the parties formed an oral settlement agreement and state statutory law must be applied to determine whether the agreement if any is enforceable (C) holding that factual issues essential to determining whether state law bar applied should be submitted to a jury (D) holding that the disputed issue with respect to the state law bar was properly submitted to the jury (E) holding that state court with jurisdiction over  301 claim should have applied federal labor law rather than state contract law
[A]:
holding that the issue of foreseeability should be submitted to the jury where reasonable persons might differ