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.

. . . there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision[s]." Murray v. St. Michael's Coll., 164 Vt. 205, 210, 667 A.2d 294, 299 (1995). In Burlington Northern, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under Title VII need show only that "a reasonable employee [in the employee's situation] would have found the challenged action materially adverse," meaning that it well might have dissuaded a reasonable employee from engaging in the protected activity. 548 U.S. at 68. 34. Assuming, without deciding, that this is the standard to apply with respect to retaliation claims brought under 21 V.S.A. 710(b), we conclude that the limited video surveillance in this case in connectio v., 37 F.3d 1146, 1150 (5th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). 35. But in this case, if the release
Holding statements: (A) holding that the former wife did not waive her attorneyclient privilege simply because the credibility of her claim that she relied on her husbands representations could be impeached by deposing her former attorney (B) 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 (C) holding that because a claimant testified that she had no insurance and could not afford treatment her failure to take medication for her symptoms is not a clear and convincing reason for discrediting her symptom testimony (D) holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties (E) holding that the employee was acting within the course of her employment when she died while returning from the workrelated session because her death occurred on a public highway which was brought within the scope of her employment by her employers requirement that she attend training at the state police academy
holding that the former wife did not waive her attorneyclient privilege simply because the credibility of her claim that she relied on her husbands representations could be impeached by deposing her former attorney

for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const, amend. V. 16 . Plaintiffs' April 3, 2009 Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs never received a Notice of Deficiency for any of the tax years at issue. Compl. at 2. Plaintiffs, however, attached a copy of a Notice of Deficiency for 1997 and 1998 in their Petition to the Tax Court challenging the deficiency determinations for these years. Gov't Mot. Ex. C. Further, Plaintiffs did not dispute their receipt of a Notice of Deficiency at the November 15, 2002 CDP hearing. Gov't Mot. Exs. E, G, H. Section 2514 of Title 28 of the United States Code requires forfeiture of a tax claim when a party attempts to establish its claim through fraud. 28 U.S.C. 2514; see also Standard Oil v. United States, 98 Ct.Cl. 201, 246, 47 F.Supp. 120 (1942) (<HOLDING>); see also Kamen Soap Products v. United
Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs claim for refund of corporate income taxes was forfeited when plaintiff presented forged corporate minutes to the irs with the knowledge they were forged (B) holding that a fraudulent transfer claim against a corporate debtors control person belongs to the corporate debtor not to specific creditors (C) holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract (D) holding that the general corporate laws are incorporated into the corporate charter (E) holding that grand jury testimony of officer and inhouse counsel for corporate defendant was properly admitted as admission against the corporate defendant
holding that a fraudulent transfer claim against a corporate debtors control person belongs to the corporate debtor not to specific creditors

types of proper and timely postdecision motions extend the time to appeal the order or judgment that is the subject of the motion. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 2. Motions for amended findings and a new trial are included in the list of tolling motions. Id,, subd. 2(b), (d). Unless Minn. Stat. 508.29 provides otherwise, appellants' proper and timely motions for amended findings or a new trial extended the time to appeal the April 19, 2017 order granting respondent's petition. No language in Minn. Stat. 508.29 precludes the operation of Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd.' 2. On the contrary, Minn. Stat. 508.29 specifies that the appeal shall be as in other civil cases. Cf. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth. v. Main St. Fridley Props., LLC, 755 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Minn. App. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Appellants' proper and timely motions for
Holding statements: (A) holding that faa 16a3 did not preempt a state statute prohibiting appeal of an order to compel arbitration and reasoning that there is no reason to suppose that the timing of the exercise of the right of appeal from an order compelling arbitration is other than a procedural matter which does not alter the substantive rights of either party (B) holding that an order not denominated a judgment is not final for purposes of appeal (C) holding that minn r civ app p 10401 subd 2 does not apply to an appeal of an order approving the public use or public purpose necessity and authority for the taking under minn stat 117075 subd 1c 2006 because the statute specifies that the order becomes final unless the appeal is taken within the 60day appeal period and the statute does not indicate that the matter is to proceed as in other civil actions (D) holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal (E) holding that if an express appeal waiver does not preclude a challenge to the sentence as unlawful then the covenant not to appeal becomes meaningless
holding that faa 16a3 did not preempt a state statute prohibiting appeal of an order to compel arbitration and reasoning that there is no reason to suppose that the timing of the exercise of the right of appeal from an order compelling arbitration is other than a procedural matter which does not alter the substantive rights of either party