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.

[EX Q]: 375 N.E.2d 1192 (1978). Two of Gunther’s theories are easily eliminated. First, a plaintiff is a member of a protected class if she asserts “a claim based on sex discrimination as a pregnant woman.” White v. University of Mass., 410 Mass. 553, 557, 574 N.E.2d 356 (1991). There is no allegation that Gunther’s termination was motivated by animus toward her pregnancy because at the time of her discharge she was not pregnant and had been working for over eight months in a managerial position with equivalent salary. Second, to the extent that Gunther is claiming she was discriminated against as a single mother, she can not prevail. Parenthood is not listed as a protected class in the statute. See G.L. c. 151B, § 4; cf. Upton v. JWP Businessland, 425 Mass. 756, 758-59, 682 N.E.2d 1357 (1997) (<HOLDING>). With respect to the claim of pure gender 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (B) recognizing public policy exception to atwill doctrine (C) holding that it was not a violation of public policy for the defendant to discharge the plaintiff an atwill employee because she was a single mother unwilling to work newly imposed long hours (D) holding that an employee could maintain a claim for constructive discharge in violation of virginias public policy exception to the employment atwill doctrine (E) holding that an atwill employee may not recover for discriminatory discharge under section 1981 because the atwill relationship was not sufficiently contractual under tennessee law
[EX A]: recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy

[EX Q]: created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference ... by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts'were occurring. Id. at 127 (citing Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir.1995)). The Supreme Court’s decision in Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, which found that a supervisor can be held liable only "through the official’s own individual actions,” id. at 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937, arguably casts doubt on the continued viability of some of the categories set forth in Hastings On Hudson and Colon. See Grullon, 720 F.3d at 139 (<HOLDING>). For the purposes of this case, however, it is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the same with respect to an apartment (B) holding that no heightened showing is required (C) holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment (D) recognizing that opinion work product subject to discovery upon heightened showing of compelling need (E) recognizing chat iqbal may have heightened the requirements for showing a supervisors personal involvement with respect to certain constitutional violations
[EX A]: holding the same with respect to an apartment

[EX Q]: were reasonable under the circumstances, triable issues of fact would exist regarding whether the scope and degree of the state interference was justified by the alleged exigency. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447; Barlow, 943 F.2d at 1138 (“Police officers can proceed without a warrant if they reasonably believe they are confronted with an emergency that threatens life or limb, but the [intrusion] must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.”); Franz, 997 F.2d at 791 (intrusion must be “reasonably necessary to alleviate the threat”); Good, 891 F.2d at 1093 (under “very limited exception” to warrant rule, intrusion must be reasonably necessary to alleviate the threat of immediate harm); Hebein, 37 F.Supp.2d at 1043 (<HOLDING>). Merely because some intrusion on a child’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that before a duty can be imposed there must be a relationship between the parties and the harm must have been foreseeable (B) holding hfo mandatory minimum sentence for robbery must run concurrently with sentences imposed for nonhfo first degree murder convictions (C) holding that aggravating factors may justify increasing the degree of discipline imposed (D) holding that danger must justify the degree of interference imposed (E) recognizing that the question of the degree of intent that must be shown to support a judgment of civil contempt is unsettled
[EX A]:
holding that before a duty can be imposed there must be a relationship between the parties and the harm must have been foreseeable