TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: 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

SOLUTION: recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy

PROBLEM: transcript has the same character as the act of denying a debtor the opportunity to register for class or to graduate, as it deprives a student of a service that would be available to her were she not a debtor ..." Id. at 534. Numerous courts have examined the issue whether an educational institution violates the automatic stay when it withholds a debtor's transcript due to an outstanding tuition balance or student loan debt. "The majority view is that the withholding of a debtor's transcript because of an outstanding tuition balance or unpaid student loans violates the automatic stay." In re Moore, 407 B.R. 855, 860 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2009) (citing In re Mu'min, 374 B.R. 149, 155 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2007)); Parker, 334 B.R. at 534-36; see also In re Carson, 150 B.R. 228, 231 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1993) (<HOLDING>). ANALYSIS Based on the foregoing, the Court
Holding statements: (A) holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order (B) holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void (C) holding that university violated the automatic stay by withholding chapter 7 debtors transcripts because the debts were not yet determined nondischargeable (D) holding that creditors failure to voluntarily turn over property lawfully seized prepetition constituted violation of automatic stay (E) holding that a college withholding delivery of transcripts due to an outstanding prepetition debt is an act to collect in violation of the automatic stay

SOLUTION: holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order

PROBLEM: regarding Ragnoli. App. 79. The letter explained that Ragnoli had requested that the BOP run his federal sentence concurrently with his state sentence. The BOP could accomplish this by retroactively designating the state prison as the institution for service of Ragnoli's federal sentence. This retroactive designation would reduce the total amount of time Ragnoli spent in custody, as the State Court had ordered. The letter indicated that it is the BOP's "preference" to obtain the federal sentencing court's position on any such retroactive designations, but that the BOP would make its own decision if it had not heard back from the District Court within 60 days. If the District Court stated its position within 60 days, the BOP would designate Ragnoli's place of imprisonment acco ir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Since the District Court's letter was not an
Holding statements: (A) holding that the portion of a district courts order that included a specific place of imprisonment was only a nonbinding recommendation to the bop and therefore not appealable (B) holding that district courts adoption of the magistrate judges report and recommendation one day after issuance did not constitute reversible error where district court conducted a meaningful review of the report and recommendation (C) holding that district courts nonbinding recommendations to the bop are not appealable (D) holding that a district courts recommendation that the bop not credit the defendant for his time in state custody was not appealable because the district courts recommendation was not binding on the bop (E) holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for clear error

SOLUTION:
holding that the portion of a district courts order that included a specific place of imprisonment was only a nonbinding recommendation to the bop and therefore not appealable