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 Input:
375 N.E.2d 1192 (1978). Two of Gunther's theories are easily eliminated. First, a plaintiff is a member of a protected class if she asserts "a claim based on sex discrimination as a pregnant woman." White v. University of Mass., 410 Mass. 553, 557, 574 N.E.2d 356 (1991). There is no allegation that Gunther's termination was motivated by animus toward her pregnancy because at the time of her discharge she was not pregnant and had been working for over eight months in a managerial position with equivalent salary. Second, to the extent that Gunther is claiming she was discriminated against as a single mother, she can not prevail. Parenthood is not listed as a protected class in the statute. See G.L. c. 151B, 4; cf. Upton v. JWP Businessland, 425 Mass. 756, 758-59, 682 N.E.2d 1357 (1997) (<HOLDING>). With respect to the claim of pure gender
Holding statements: (A) recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (B) recognizing public policy exception to atwill doctrine (C) holding that it was not a violation of public policy for the defendant to discharge the plaintiff an atwill employee because she was a single mother unwilling to work newly imposed long hours (D) holding that an employee could maintain a claim for constructive discharge in violation of virginias public policy exception to the employment atwill doctrine (E) holding that an atwill employee may not recover for discriminatory discharge under section 1981 because the atwill relationship was not sufficiently contractual under tennessee law

Ex Output:
recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy

Ex Input:
9006(b)(3). There is no excusable neglect basis for enlarging the claims bar date included in Rule 3002(c). Accordingly, the excusable neglect standard found in Rule 9006(b)(1) does not authorize extensions of the claims deadline imposed in chapter 13 cases. In re Oscar, 2005 WL 6522763 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. Apr. 14, 2005). "[S]ince 1994, the courts have almost uniformly ruled that proofs of claim that are untimely filed in a Chapter 13 case may not be deemed timely filed, and that the claimants thereunder should not take from, or be permitted to recover from, the debtor's estate under the Chapter 13 plan." Daniels, 466 B.R. at 217 (listing examples). This Court has consistently held that late claims are not permitted in chapter 13 cases. In re Dumain, 492 B.R. 140, 148 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2013) (<HOLDING>). As such, the Court will not allow Ocwen's
Holding statements: (A) holding impairment of secured creditors foreclosure remedy permissible (B) holding that failure to comply with bankruptcy rule 4004 may be waived (C) holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added (D) holding that secured creditors must comply with the bar date imposed by bankruptcy rule 3002c (E) holding that a creditors security was preserved notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the debtor

Ex Output:
holding impairment of secured creditors foreclosure remedy permissible

Ex Input:
481-82 & 489, 112 S.Ct. 812. He failed to do so. This case is distinguishable from Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799 (9th Cir.2004), where there was evidence that the petitioner suffered persecution separate from efforts by guerrillas to recruit him, which led to a conclusion that the assaults were "punishment for his pro-establishment political opinions." Id. at 804. Zarate testified that he was not a member of any political group and did not establish that the attacks on him were caused by anything other than his resistance to forced recruitment. Zarate also failed to provide compelling evidence that he would more likely than not be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if he returned to Guatemala. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). PETITION DENIED. ** This disposition is not
Holding statements: (A) holding that cat applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country (B) holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioners argument that the evidence in the record clearly establishes that he is more likely than not to face torture if removed citation quotation marks and brackets omitted (C) holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review whether alien established that he will more likely than not be tortured if removed (D) holding that to qualify for protection under the convention against torture an alien must show that he will more likely than not be tortured in his home country if removed (E) holding that petitioner must demonstrate it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon his return

Ex Output:
holding that cat applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country