instruction:
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.
question:
from disciplining him for absenteeism prior to May of 2007. Sánchez contends that AT & T’s offer of other positions was not reasonable because those positions offered lower compensation. He also contends that the offer of shift-swapping was not reasonable because AT & T did not provide the sched ules of other employees, as it had promised. However, we need not decide whether either of these accommodations was reasonable in isolation, because they were not offered in isolation — rather, they were offered as part of a series of attempts by AT & T to accommodate Sánchez. Many courts have found similar accommodations or combinations of accommodations to be reasonable under Title VII. See, e.g., Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 77-78, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Med. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits (B) holding that employer reasonably accommodated seventh day adventist employee by inter alia agreeing to permit any shift exchanges that employee could arrange on his own (C) holding that employers must when appropriate accommodate a disabled employee by reassignment to a vacant position if employee cannot be accommodated in existing job (D) holding that a seniority and absenteeism system itself provided reasonable accommodation to a seventh day adventist employees religious needs (E) holding employee could proceed against employer in action for fraudulent misrepresentation where employees complaint alleged inter alia employee was regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust at place of employment employer tested employees blood to monitor lead levels employer willfully and intentionally withheld employees test results which showed employee had developed leadrelated diseases and employer subsequently altered those results to induce employee to continue working for employer employee further alleged employers concealment of employees condition prevented employee from reducing his exposure to lead and obstructed him from receiving appropriate medical treatment and that delay in treatment resulted in aggravation of employees injury
answer:
holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits


question:
though it may be more expedient for the legislature to redraft the statute in its entirety. See Hill, 202 Ill. 2d at 156; McDougall, 389 Ill. at 155. Defendant further contends that the decision by another division of this appellate district in In re E.H., 355 Ill. App. 3d 564 (2005), which he claims held section 115 — 10 to be facially unconstitutional en toto, is “controlling.” We begin by initially noting that defendant misstates the effect that the decision of one appellate court panel has upon the subsequent considerations of another. We are not bound by the decisions of the other divisions of this district so that even if E.H. held as defendant claims, it would not be “controlling” over our analysis. Muller v. Health & Hospital Governing Comm’n, 106 Ill. App. 3d 383, 386 (1982) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 93 Ill. 2d 543 (1983) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding res judicata applied to improper property division before holding parties were bound by their division agreement (B) holding that appellate court is not bound by the agencys interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue (C) holding that the attorney generals decision not to provide representation to an employee is reviewable by the appellate division not by the law division where the actions against the employee are pending (D) holding itself not bound by the opinion of another division of its own appellate district (E) holding that this court is not bound by decisions of the appellate division or the third circuit even where those decisions concern the same parties and legal issues
answer:
holding res judicata applied to improper property division before holding parties were bound by their division agreement


question:
indifference to the rights of inmates by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring.” Id. (citing Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir.1994)). Following Iqbal, courts in this district have held that a defendant cannot be held liable under section 1983 unless that defendant took an action that deprived the plaintiff of his or her constitutional rights. See, e.g., Joseph v. Fischer, 2009 WL 3321011, at *15, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96952, at *42-43 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2009) (“[pjlaintiffs claim, based on [a supervisor’s] failure to take corrective measures, is precisely the type of claim Iqbal eliminated.”); Bellamy v. Mount Vernon Hosp., 07 Civ. 1801, 2009 WL 1835939, at *6, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54141, at *27-28 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 26, 2009) (<HOLDING>); Newton v. City of New York, 640 F.Supp.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that iqbal eliminated supervisory liability previously permitted by colon in situations where the supervisor knew of and acquiesced to a constitutional violation committed by a subordinate (B) holding that a constitutional violation by a subordinate is a predicate for supervisory liability under  1983 (C) holding that deliberate indifference standard for imposing supervisory liability based on an eighth amendment violation is consistent with iqbal and collecting cases (D) holding that supervisory liability under  1983 requires a showing that the supervisory official at least implicitly authorized or approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate (E) holding colon standard is unaffected by iqbal in deliberate indifference case because iqbal involved discriminatory intent
answer:

holding that a constitutional violation by a subordinate is a predicate for supervisory liability under  1983