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.

[EX Q]: Cordova’s final policymaking authority concerning the termination or transfer of employees. For the aforesaid reasons, I conclude summary judgment should enter against Singer on the § 1981 and § 1983 claims against the School District. B. Liability of Cordova under § 1981. I have concluded the School District is not liable to Singer under § 1981. I consider Defendants’ additional argument concerning the § 1981 claim since it remains of relevance to Singer’s § 1981 claim against Cor-dova. Defendants argue § 1981 does not apply to religious discrimination and the claim should be dismissed insofar as it is based on such discrimination. See Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat’l Lab., 992 F.2d 1033, 1036 n. 3 (10th Cir.1993); Manzanares v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 593 F.2d 968, 971 (10th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Singer cites the holding in Shaare Tefila 
 Holding statements: (A) holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination (B) holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex (C) holding that a violation of  1981 requires purposeful race discrimination (D) holding that racial discrimination is not a personal injury tort (E) holding  1981 is directed to racial discrimination although not necessarily limited to the technical or restrictive meaning of race but does not apply to sex or religious discrimination
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: until after the interview ended. Defendants therefore contend that we should ignore contrary testimony by Whalen and Connelly. On summary judgment, however, we do not merely accept the plaintiff's contentions as true. Instead, we must draw all justifiable inferences in the nonmovanfs favor. There is no requirement that inferences favorable to the plaintiff may only be based on evidence that she has submitted to us. Here, the justifiable inference favorable to plaintiff is that a question of fact exists regarding this issue. 6 . The Supreme Court’s plurality decision in Al-bright casts some doubt on whether a plaintiff may state a claim for coercion of a confession under both the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. See Albright,-U.S. at-,-,-, -, 114 S.Ct. at 813, 814, 817, 820-21 (<HOLDING>). The Second Circuit has stated that Albright 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that false arrest supports a claim against state police under  1983 because it violates the fourth amendment (B) recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim (C) holding that when a prisoners deliberate indifference claim is covered by the eighth amendment the substantive due process claims are duplicative and thus the substantive due process claims should be dismissed (D) holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment (E) holding in five separate opinions that  1983 claim based on persons arrest cannot be brought under substantive due process where more specific constitutional provision  fourth amendment  applies
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: on which she was indicted. On the videotape, DeSalvo claimed knowledge and expertise in furnishing Medicare providers with substantial, no-risk benefits by subscribing to lost charge audit services. The videotape illustrated DeSalvo’s promotion of and proficiency in lost charge audits, thus tending to show that when she previously submitted false Medicare claims, she knew them to be false. Similar cases have found applicability of Rule 404(b) in less persuasive circumstances. See United States v. McDonald, 576 F.2d 1350, 1356 (9th Cir.) (finding that developer’s subsequent statements on land deals implied knowledge of previously fraudulent conduct), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 830, 99 S.Ct. 105, 58 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978); see also United States v. Bibo-Rodriguez, 922 F.2d 1398, 1399 (9th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1234, 111 S.Ct. 2861, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that despite differences in method evidence of subsequent drug smuggling could be admitted to show prior knowledge and intent (B) holding there was no rule 404b violation where the evidence was admitted to show knowledge and knowledge was an element of the crime charged (C) holding prior drug convictions relevant to show that defendant had knowledge and intent necessary to possess drugs at issue in case (D) holding that evidence of a 10yearold drug conviction was properly admitted to show intent in a prosecution for possession with intent to distribute (E) holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy
[EX A]:
(A)