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.

[EX Q]: Covenant Media of South Carolina, LLC v. City of North Charleston, 493 F.3d 421 (4th Cir.2007) (city regulation was revised during the litigation to include a time limit for reviewing permits; however the court still found standing because Covenant had suffered an injury by the City's application of the original unconstitutional ordinance that is redressable at least by nominal damages); Boulder Sign Co. v. City of Boulder City, Nevada, 281 Fed.Appx. 701 (9th Cir.2008) (City passed an ordinance banning all billboards while sign company was challenging size restrictions of the original ordinance; court found no standing because sign company's alleged injury cannot be redressed by a favorable decision.); Coral Springs St. Sys. v. City of Sunrise, 371 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Granite State Outdoor Adven, Inc. v.
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the zoning code of a homerule city is a legislative enactment (B) recognizing that code is speech (C) recognizing that source code is speech but not reaching the object code issue (D) holding that the challenge to the sign code is moot because the original code was repealed and superseded and there was no reasonable likelihood the city would reenact the old code (E) holding that citys enforcement of the entire state penal code would not constitute a city policy because the city was required to follow state law
[EX A]: recognizing that the zoning code of a homerule city is a legislative enactment

[EX Q]: induced his employer to terminate his at-will employment?" See Haddle, 119 S.Ct. at 491. The Supreme Court ruled only on that issue. See Haddle, 119 S.Ct. at 492. The Eleventh circuit had already previously rejected the intracorpo-rate conspiracy doctrine. Because the in-tracorporate conspiracy doctrine was not before the Supreme Court, it would be a mistake to draw any inference from the Court's silence on the issue. See United States v. Stewart, 650 F.2d 178, 180 (9th Cir.1981); Sacramento Valley Chapter of National Electrical Contractors Association v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 632 F.Supp. 1403, 1414 (E.D.Cal.1986), aff'd, 888 F.2d 604 (9th Cir.1989). The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine first developed in the anti-trust context. See Nelson, 200 F.2d at 914 (<HOLDING>). The Seventh Circuit extended the doctrine to
Holding statements: (A) holding that as a general rule the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice (B) holding a corporation cannot conspire with its officers and agents to restrain trade in its own products (C) holding that a hospital can conspire with members of its medical staff (D) recognizing that agents of a corporation may be held criminally responsible for crimes committed in the name of the corporation (E) recognizing that representation of a corporation by its officers in administrative proceedings is allowed
[EX A]: holding that as a general rule the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice

[EX Q]: of the statute did not recognize mere statements to a supervisor as a protected activity. Id.; see also Lambert v. Genesee Hospital, 10 F.3d 46, 55 (2d Cir.1993) ("The plain language of this provision limits the cause of action to retaliation for filing formal complaints, instituting a proceeding, or testifying, but does not encompass complaints made to a supervisor.") (citations omitted). Other courts have found oral complaints to be protected activity, but it is difficult to draw guidance from these decisions be cause many of them do not specifically state whether the complaint in question was written or purely verbal, and none discusses the statute's use of the verb "to file" and whether it requires a writing. See EEOC v. Romeo Community Schools, 976 F.2d 985, 989-90 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); EEOC v. White & Son Enters., 881 F.2d 1006,
Holding statements: (A) holding without discussion of the verbalwritten distinction that employees voicing of concern was protected activity (B) holding without discussion of the verbalwritten distinction that plaintiffs apparently oral complaints to supervisors were protected activity (C) holding that informal complaints to superiors about discrimination constitute protected activity (D) holding that written but not oral internal complaints are protected based on the inclusion of the verb filed (E) holding without discussion of the verbalwritten distinction that defendants mistaken belief that plaintiff had made apparently oral complaints to supervisors was grounds for suit
[EX A]:
holding without discussion of the verbalwritten distinction that employees voicing of concern was protected activity