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.

Input: Consider Input: in nature and may be waived if not timely raised. Section 1445(c) applies to prohibit the removal of a civil action arising under the workmen’s compensation laws of a state. It does not prohibit federal district court’s from exercising supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367. The state worker compensation statutes themselves may affect the court’s jurisdiction by requiring claims to be filed with an administrative agency. However, such is not the case for claims of retaliatory discharge for exercising rights under Michigan’s WDCA. As noted above, the expeditious and inexpensive procedures found in Michigan’s WDCA are not utilized when an employee alleges retaliatory discharge. Such a claim is treated like any other tort and can be filed in state court. See Delke, 460 N.W.2d at 327-28 (<HOLDING>); see also Lamoria, 584 N.W.2d at 600; Chiles 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge (B) holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws (C) recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act (D) holding that retaliation claim did not arise under states workers compensation laws (E) holding that the bureau of workers disability compensation did not have jurisdiction to hear retaliation claims and explaining that the michigan legislatures intent was not to create an administrative remedy for retaliatory discharge

Output: recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge


Input: Consider Input: Sept. 3, 1998)(variance is not material “where the allegations and proof substantially correspond, the variance is not of a character which could have misled the defendant at trial and is not such as to deprive the accused of his right to be protected against another prosecution for the same offense”). A material variance is sometimes referred to as a “fatal variance.” We have not been consistent in requiring materiality, but have sometimes reversed upon a finding of variance without exploring the further question of materiality. Compare Rowan v. State, 57 Tex.Crim. 625, 124 S.W. 668 (1910)(variance is not material unless it could mislead defense or expose defendant to danger of subsequent prosecution for same offense); Plessinger v. State, 536 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Crim.App.1976)(<HOLDING>) with Pedrosa v. State, 155 Tex.Crim. 155, 232 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error (B) holding that heightened evidentiary standard of proof is not required where the sentencing enhancement is based entirely on the extent of the conspiracy to which the defendant pled guilty (C) holding that where a defendant is misled and induced to plead by his counsels mistaken advice then he may be allowed to withdraw his plea (D) holding variance between enhancement allegation and proof renders evidence legally insufficient only if variance is material (E) holding variance in style of case pled for enhancement not material where defendant not surprised or misled to his prejudice

Output: holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error


Input: Consider Input: Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 312, 771 N.E.2d 770, 775-76 (2002); see also Brum v. Town of Dartmouth, 428 Mass. 684, 704 N.E.2d 1147, 1155 (1999) (“[T]he principal purpose of § 10(j) is to preclude liability for failure to prevent' or diminish harm, including harm brought about by the wrongful act of a third party.”). Here, Plaintiff has not presented evidence of an affirmative act (as opposed to a failure to act) by the Individual Defendants that originally caused Plaintiff to suffer harassment. See, e.g., Doe v. Old Rochester Reg'l Sch. Dist., 56 F.Supp.2d 114, 121 (D.Mass.1999) (“Even if the School District ignored the Does’ complaints about harassment by other students, "there are no allegations that it ‘originally caused’ the students to harass Jane Doe.”); Brum, 704 N.E.2d at 1155-56 (<HOLDING>). Thus, even if Plaintiff had made presentment, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a school had no duty to protect pedestrian from student (B) holding that a prosecutor is absolutely immune from a suit claiming that he destroyed and falsified evidence (C) holding that school officials were immune from suit claiming they failed to protect student from an inschool stabbing (D) holding college school district immune from suit in federal court under eleventh amendment (E) holding state immune from suit involving a federal question


Output: holding that a school had no duty to protect pedestrian from student