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. 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.
question:
justification was pretextual.” Smith v. District of Columbia, 430 F.3d 450, 455 (D.C.Cir.2005) (quoting Murray v. Gilmore, 406 F.3d 708, 713 (D.C.Cir.2005)). The court should assess the plaintiffs challenge to the employer’s explanation in light of the totality of the circumstances of the case. Aka, 156 F.3d at 1291. The strength of the plaintiffs prima fa-cie case, especially the existence of a causal connection, can be a significant factor in his attempt to rebut the defendant’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action. See Aka, 156 F.3d at 1289 n. 4 (stating that “a prima facie case that strongly suggests intentional discrimination may be enough by itself to survive summary judgment”); Laurent v. Bureau of Rehab., Inc., 544 F.Supp.2d 17, 23 n. 5 (D.D.C.2008) (<HOLDING>); Meadows v. Mukasey, 555 F.Supp.2d 205, 211-13 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position (B) holding that the plaintiff demonstrated pretext in part by establishing a causal connection (C) holding that to establish a causal connection plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him knew of the employees protected activity (D) holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury (E) holding that the plaintiff cannot establish pretext because she is unable to show any causal connection
answer:
(E)


question:
for abuse of discretion, while its application of legal precepts in determining that any delay was excusable is reviewed under a plenary standard). 17 . The Melendez court issued an order granting the petition on October 15, 2002, giving the Election Division Director three weeks to make any necessary changes. 18 . See supra note 8, at 239, 919 A.2d at 1280. 19 . This Court has long recognized the importance of the elective franchise. See Maryland Green Party v. State Board of Elections, 377 Md. 127, 150, 832 A.2d 214, 228 (2003) (stating that Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights "has been held to be even more protective of rights of political participation than the provisions of the federal Constitution”); Munsell v. Hennegan, 182 Md. 15, 22, 31 A.2d 640, 644 (1943) (<HOLDING>); Kemp v. Owens, 76 Md. 235, 241, 24 A. 606, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the potential harm caused to uocava voters far outweighed the burden placed upon the state because of the states legally mandated obligation to provide uocava voters the ability to vote (B) recognizing the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs and the right of qualified voters regardless of their political persuasion to cast their votes effectively (C) holding that electors should have the fullest opportunity to vote for candidates of any political party and any restrictions that are destructive of freedom of choice by voters will not be upheld (D) holding that the right to vote is fundamental (E) holding that state may not compel political party to allow nonmembers to vote in its primary elections
answer:
(C)


question:
127 (1988). The act is effective; it is a rare event when a federal court is asked to intervene to stop a state court proceeding. It is even more rare when the federal court accepts the invitation. As cautious as courts may be about reaching out to enjoin a state court from proceeding with litigation, there are circumstances that require such action. One such circumstance is the specter of parties relitigating in state court the same matters that have been decided by the federal court. See 17 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4226 (2d ed. 1988) (“The courts have clearly understood that the third exception [to the Anti-Injunction Act] does allow injunctions to prevent re-litigation.”). See also Midkiff v. Tom, 725 F.2d 502 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect (B) holding that a federal court acting under its federal as opposed to diversity jurisdiction may also give greater preclusive effect to a state court judgment than the state courts would give (C) holding that issuance of injunction was necessary to protect federal court judgment when hawaiian state courts refused to grant it preclusive effect (D) holding that state court judgment settling shareholders state and federal claims had preclusive effect in federal court even though shareholders could not have pressed their federal claims in state court (E) holding that illinois federal court erred in giving preclusive effect to minnesota state courts dismissal of action on statute of limitations grounds based on minnesotas treatment of statutes of limitations as procedural in nature and without preclusive effect
answer:

(C)