Instructions: 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: estigated Mion's claim, concluded that Aftermarket owed Mion $310 .18 in baek wages under the FMLA and forwarded WH-58 release forms to Aftermarket to be signed by Mion. The parties have submitted evidence of several communications bet its assent to a settlement by sending out the applicable release forms. See id. at 306. Similarly, in Cuevas, the court held that 216(c) applied to effectuate a waiver where the DOL supplied, and the employee signed, WH-58 release forms. 752 F.Supp. at 1415-16. The court in Heavenridge v. Ace-Tex Corp., No. 92-75610, 1993 WL 603201 (E.D.Mich. Sept.3, 1993) held that where an employee cashes the employer's check, the DOL's supplying of WH-58 forms with the check, rather than the employee's signing the forms, effectuates the waiver. Id. at *2-3 (<HOLDING>). The court relied on the plain language of the
Holding statements: (A) holding that the authorization under 29 usc 1132a3 extends to a suit against a nonfiduciary party in interest to a transaction barred by 29 usc 1106a (B) holding under flsa 29 usc 216c (C) holding that the defendant is in the best position to prove and should bear the burden of establishing its entitlement to an exemption under 29 usc 1108 from 29 usc 1106b erisas prohibited transactions provision (D) holding under flsa (E) holding that the finding that entities constitute a single enterprise under 29 usc 203r is separate and distinct from whether an entity is an employer under 29 usc 203d
Output:
holding that the authorization under 29 usc 1132a3 extends to a suit against a nonfiduciary party in interest to a transaction barred by 29 usc 1106a