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.

[Q]: Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co., 516 F.3d 516, 523-26 (6th Cir.2008). Here, the Plaintiff was terminated by the Defendants three weeks after the filing of the Complaint in this case. This close temporal proximity between the Plaintiffs protected activity and the adverse employment action is sufficient evidence such that a reasonable juror could conclude that the adverse employment action would not have occurred but for his engagement in pro tected activity. See Dixon v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 324, 334 (6th Cir.2007) ("This Court typically [has] found the causal connection element [is] satisfied only where the adverse employment action occurred within a matter of months, or less, of the protected activity"); see also Herrera v. Churchill McGee, LLC, 545 Fed.Appx. 499, 501 (6th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); Shefferly v. Health Alliance Plan of Mich.,
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 in a discrimination case that a close temporal proximity sufficient to survive summary judgment existed where the challenged employment action occurred one month after the protected activity (C) holding that intervening misconduct can sever the temporal proximity connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment (D) 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 (E) holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection
[A]: holding in a discrimination case that a close temporal proximity sufficient to survive summary judgment existed where the challenged employment action occurred one month after the protected activity

[Q]: individual has breached a duty of reasonable care. Bolick v. Sunbird Airlines, Inc., 96 N.C. App. 443, 386 S.E.2d 76 (1989), aff'd, 327 N.C. 464, 396 S.E.2d 323 (1990). Sudden emergency does not change or reduce the standard of reasonable care. It is simply one of the factors to be considered in determining whether a person acted reasonably under the circumstances. Id. The sudden emergency doctrine permits the court to call to the attention of the jury that an emergency faced by the actor may influence its determination of whether specific conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. The doctrine of sudden emergency is not a legal defense which operates to bar an action. Id. But cf. Hinson v. Brown, 80 N.C. App. 661, 343 S.E.2d 284, rev. denied, 318 N.C. 282, 348 S.E.2d 138 (1986) (<HOLDING>). External forces that have been found to
Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court erred by instructing jury regarding sudden emergency (B) holding that sudden emergency is an affirmative defense which must be specifically plead (C) recognizing that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense a party must plead and prove (D) holding that a claim of exemption is an affirmative defense which must be specifically pleaded (E) holding that to avoid an affirmative defense a plaintiff must plead specifically matters of affirmative avoidance pursuant to rule 5508
[A]: holding that trial court erred by instructing jury regarding sudden emergency

[Q]: that he did not pull his arm away or do anything that would lead Sergeant Palmer to conclude that he was not complying with the arrest. (Doc. 38-2, p. 84). More importantly, once Mr. Scott was on the ground and Sergeant Palmer was on top of him with one arm cuffed behind Mr. Scott, there was no reason for Sergeant Palmer to continue to hit Mr. Scott in the back and press his head into the ground. An arrestee's right to be free from this level of force during an arrest is clearly established; no reasonable officer with the information available to Sergeant Palmer could have believed that the amount of force that Sergeant Palmer used to arrest Mr. Scott was constitutionally permissible. Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 7 F.3d 1552, 1559 (11th Cir. 1993); see Hadley, 526 F.3d at 1334 (<HOLDING>). Although the non-resisting plaintiffs in
Holding statements: (A) holding that the right to be free from the use of excessive force has been well established since 1976 (B) holding that arrest warrant can support entry into suspects residence when there is reason to believe the suspect is within (C) holding that a reasonable officer would have known that repeatedly punching kicking and stomping a subdued individual violated the clearly established constitutional right not to be subjected to excessive force during arrest (D) holding that punching a nonresisting criminal suspect for no apparent reason other than malice was a violation of the suspects clearly established right to be free from excessive force during an arrest (E) holding that in excessive force cases the threshold question for the court is whether the officers conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right
[A]:
holding that the right to be free from the use of excessive force has been well established since 1976