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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Q: . The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, to whom this case was referred with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). 3 . Montandon also alleged Title VII claims against Todd and Ehlers in their personal capacities, as well as constructive discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. His wife, Tish Walker Montandon, claimed loss of consortium. The district court dismissed these claims. Because they have not been raised on appeal, they are deemed abandoned. See Jasperson v. Purolator Courier Corp., 765 F.2d 736, 740-41 (8th Cir.1985). 4 . It remains to be seen whether our holding in Quick will remain the law. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 83 F.3d 118 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), cert, granted, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2430, 138 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that title vii does not address samesex harassment (B) holding that samesex sexual harassment claims are not actionable under title vii (C) holding that title vii does not protect employees from harassment based on sexual orientation (D) holding that samcscx sexual harassment claims are actionable under title vii (E) holding that title vii does not include a continuing violation doctrine

A: (A)
****
Q: any evidence that Qualex’s action had any reason to perceive plaintiff as being disabled, any claim that the withdrawal of the offer of employment was motivated by such a perception is purely speculative. As such, plaintiffs claim that defendant Qualex violated the ADA by withdrawing its offer of employment fails as a matter of law. See Hoffman at 1 (“Unsupported speculation does not satisfy a party’s burden to produce some evidence in resisting a summary judgment motion.”). B. The Drug-free Workplace policy. Plaintiffs second claim is that the “Drug-free Workplace” policy maintained by defendant Qualex is a blanket exclusionary policy, leaving no allowance for the legal use of controlled substances. See Rowles v. Automated Production Systems, Inc., 92 F.Supp.2d 424, 430 (M.D.Pa.2000) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff further argues that defendant 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that employers drug policy violated the ada to the extent that it prohibits the use of all legally prescribed controlled substances without a determination that such prohibition is jobrelated and consistent with business necessity (B) holding highest and best use is to be considered to the full extent that the prospect of demand for such use affects the market value (C) holding that the 60day rule under the wisconsin controlled substances act is mandatory and that failure to set the hearing within that period deprived the trial court of jurisdiction (D) holding that the ada exceeds the  5 power  at least to the extent it extends beyond remedies for irrational discrimination (E) recognizing that the sentence imposed should be consistent with the protection of the public

A: (A)
****
Q: cannot now plead ignorance of those terms, regardless of the apparent conflict of interest in Mr. Pulliam’s conduct as a negotiator. Finally, we must point out one additional difference between the situation at bar and the line of cases, on which the Funds hope to rely, holding that collective bargaining agreements are exceptions to the rule of construction regarding promisors’ defenses against third-party beneficiaries. Those cases all involve some type of language or arrangement between the union and the employer that is unknown to the fund or trustees. In Schneider Moving, the employees sought to invoke an ADR clause that referred only to union and employer; an analogous situation is found in Local Union 597 v. Mosbeck Indus. Equipment, Inc., 856 F.2d 837, 841-842 (7th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the court in Gerber Truck refused 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union (B) holding that the present controversy concerns the plaintiffs rights under state and federal statutes which exist independently of the collective bargaining agreement and do not require interpretation of that agreement (C) holding that a collective bargaining agreement to arbitrate is binding upon individual employees even when dispute involves federal cause of action (D) holding that a debtorinpossession could reject a collective bargaining agreement (E) holding the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement did not manifest an intent to require trustees to arbitrate contribution claims

A:
(E)
****