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 Input:
whether the Bank was motivated, in whole or in part, by Strate’s association with her disabled newborn child, then summary judgment was improperly granted for the Bank. The evidence establishes that Strate gave birth to her disabled child on April 20, 2001, enrolled the child in the Bank’s group healthcare plan on April 24, 2001, and was notified that her job had been eliminated on July 2, 2001, approximately two months later. It is undisputed that Ziegler knew about the child’s disability when he made the decision to eliminate her job. On rare occasions, a close temporal connection between a protected activity and an adverse employment action may be sufficient to create an inference of retaliation. See,e.g., Bassett v. City of Minneapolis, 211 F.3d 1097, 1105-06 (8th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>) (citing cases). It follows that close temporal 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection (B) holding that a temporal link between protected activity and an adverse employment action may in some cases be sufficient to create an inference of retaliation (C) holding that temporal proximity between the alleged retaliators knowledge of a protected activity and an adverse employment action may be sufficient to establish causal connection or retaliatory motive in some cases (D) holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation (E) holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action

Ex Output:
(B)


Ex Input:
I. Jurisdiction The Court of Federal Claims has “jurisdiction to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to ... a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement,” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) (2012). A party is an “interested party” with standing to bring suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) if the party “is an ’ actual or prospective bidder whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract.” Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States, 704 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2013). A bidder has a direct economic interest if it suffered a competitive injury or prejudice. Myers Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). In a post-award bid protest, the protestor 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing (B) recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a  1983 claim (C) holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice (D) holding that actual prejudice is not a necessary element of an insurers untimely notice defense (E) holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim

Ex Output:
(A)


Ex Input:
See Mitchell, 376 S.W.3d at 838 (quoting MacFarlane v. Burke, No. 01-10-00409-CV, 2011 WL 2503937, at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 23, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). Rabatin v. Kidd, 281 S.W.3d 558 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2008, no pet;), which Johnson relies on to support her contention that the omissions did not render her authorization ineffective, is unavailing. See id. at 562. Since the El Paso court decided that case, the Texas Supreme Court has made clear that the plaintiff must provide both the statutory notice of claim and medical authorization to toll the statute of limitations in a health care liability claim. See Carreras, 339 S.W.3d at 74; see also Nicholson v. Shinn, No. 01-07-00973-CV, 2009 WL 3152111, at *5-6 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 1, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION We hold that the authorization 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that notice and authorization were ineffective to toll statute because release failed to include information on plaintiffs physicians for previous five years and portion requiring her to identify her treating physicians was also incomplete (B) holding the plaintiffs failure to identify an independently created right upon which her  1983 claim rested was fatal to her claim (C) holding that a defendants argument that her psr overstated the seriousness of her past conduct was not a sufficiently specific objection to the fact of her previous conviction (D) holding victim waived physicianpatient privilege by authorizing her doctor to release her medical records to the department of criminal investigation because the information contained in her medical records was no longer confidential between herself and her physician (E) holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment

Ex Output:

(A)