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 Q]: strengthen, not displace, any existing remedies employees may. have at law." Id. It is clear from these excerpts that the STAA was not enacted to completely preempt state law remedies for retaliation against an employee who refuses to violate safety provisions. See Todd v. Frank's Tong Service, Inc., 784 P.2d 47, 49-50 (Okla.1989) (noting that Congressional intent surrounding enactment of the STAA demonstrates that state law claims are not preempted); see also Parten v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 923 F.2d 580, 583 (8th Cir.1991) (conclude ing that the Minnesota public policy statute was not an obstacle to the STAA and that Congress did not intend to occupy the entire field of interstate motor carriers); Whitworth v. TNT Bestway Transp., Inc., 914 F.Supp. 1434, 1436 (E.D.Tex.1996) (<HOLDING>); Dobberowsky v. Cryogenic Transp., Inc., 989
Holding statements: (A) holding texas exemption law was not preempted by erisa due to savings clause (B) holding that texas whistleblowers act was not preempted by the staa (C) holding a claim of a violation of the texas dtpa is preempted by the carmack amendment (D) holding that the age discrimination in employment act was not preempted by the nlra (E) holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law not arizona law should be applied
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: evidence to conclude that the government's conduct in this case amounted to a material breach, it denied Malone's appeal. 87-2 BCA 1119,758, at 99,966. In our view, the government materially breached this contract. According to Restatement (Second) of Contracts 241(e) (1981), "the extent to which the behavior of [a] party failing to perform ... comports with standards of good faith and fair dealing" is a significant factor in determining whether that party's breach is material. The Restatement also states that "[sjubter-fuges and evasions violate the obligation of good faith," as does lack of diligence and interference with or failure to cooperate in the other party's performance. Id. 205 comment d; cf. Lewis-Nicholson, Inc. v. United States, 550 F.2d 26, 32, 213 Ct.Cl. 192 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. United States, 151
Holding statements: (A) holding that subcontractor could recover damages from general contractor for delay in performance under state law (B) holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to performance under a contract (C) holding that governmentcaused delay in contractor performance violated implied duty not to hinder performance of other party (D) holding that performance may be valid acceptance (E) holding that prior positive performance evaluations are not dispositive as to whether the employer was satisfied with the employees performance by the time of the termination
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: albeit dicta, supports by negative implication allowing claimants to proceed in state court so long as the vessel owner's right to limitation of liability is adequately protected through appropriate stipulations. Extending the "single claimant" exception to instances like the present has also been endorsed by a number of our sister circuits. Specifically, the Second, Fifth and Eighth Circuits have all allowed multiple claimants to proceed in state court where the claimants have stipulated to certain conditions, namely concerning the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district court to decide the limitation of the vessel owner's liability and the claimants' waiver of any res judicata assertion. See Odeco Oil & Gas Co. v. Bonnette (Odeco I), 4 F.3d 401, 404-05 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); In re Dammers & Vanderheide & Scheepvaart
Holding statements: (A) holding that a single claimants stipulations and prioritization of her multiple claims created a single claim situation (B) holding that district court did not abuse discretion by denying review of factual determination that claimants stores were not tourism businesses within the meaning of the settlement agreement (C) holding that claimants have an enforceable right to compliance with specific remand instructions when such are issued by the board or court (D) holding that claimants stipulations which fully protected the shipowners right to seek limited liability and claimants agreement to abide by an admiralty court determination of the right to limit were adequate to lift an injunction of state court proceedings (E) holding that the plaintiff waived her right to object to procedural defects in the removal proceedings by filing requests for discovery entering into stipulations and seeking to amend her complaint
[EX A]:
(D)