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]: from disciplining him for absenteeism prior to May of 2007. Sanchez contends that AT & T's offer of other positions was not reasonable because those positions offered lower compensation. He also contends that the offer of shift-swapping was not reasonable because AT & T did not provide the sched ules of other employees, as it had promised. However, we need not decide whether either of these accommodations was reasonable in isolation, because they were not offered in isolation rather, they were offered as part of a series of attempts by AT & T to accommodate Sanchez. Many courts have found similar accommodations or combinations of accommodations to be reasonable under Title VII. See, e.g., Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 77-78, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Med.
Holding statements: (A) holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits (B) holding that employer reasonably accommodated seventh day adventist employee by inter alia agreeing to permit any shift exchanges that employee could arrange on his own (C) holding that employers must when appropriate accommodate a disabled employee by reassignment to a vacant position if employee cannot be accommodated in existing job (D) holding that a seniority and absenteeism system itself provided reasonable accommodation to a seventh day adventist employees religious needs (E) holding employee could proceed against employer in action for fraudulent misrepresentation where employees complaint alleged inter alia employee was regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust at place of employment employer tested employees blood to monitor lead levels employer willfully and intentionally withheld employees test results which showed employee had developed leadrelated diseases and employer subsequently altered those results to induce employee to continue working for employer employee further alleged employers concealment of employees condition prevented employee from reducing his exposure to lead and obstructed him from receiving appropriate medical treatment and that delay in treatment resulted in aggravation of employees injury
[EX A]: holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits

[EX Q]: to warrant such a delay. See id. Moreover, despite his argument to the contrary, Staler did not demonstrate that his criminal trial was invalid due to a fundamental error. See Stoneman, 870 F.2d at 106. Stuler was indicted and convicted for violating 26 U.S.C. 7208. See United States v. McKee, 506 F.3d 225, 244 (3d Cir.2007) (noting the elements of 26 U.S.C. 7203 include that the defendant: (1) was required to file the tax returns; (2) failed to file them; and (3) acted willfully). Stuler's invocation of a host of unrelated statutes and regulations does not alter the fact that "importing" is not an element of a 7203 charge. He has therefore failed to satisfy his burden of establishing a funda-' mental error. See United States v. Cariola, 323 F.2d 180, 184 (3d Cir.1963) (<HOLDING>). Because Stuler showed neither that any
Holding statements: (A) holding that any proceeding which is challenged by the writ is presumed to be correct and the burden rests on its assailant to show otherwise (B) recognizing that an agencys decision to terminate an employee is presumed correct (C) holding that the burden is on the plaintiff (D) holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment (E) holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged
[EX A]: recognizing that an agencys decision to terminate an employee is presumed correct

[EX Q]: v. United States, 271 F.3d 1327, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2001) (ruling that "the Takings Clause does not apply to legislation requiring the payment of money."). Plaintiff has not shown that it is entitled to damages under a theory independent of the rights accorded Canal Electric under the Standard Contract. Plaintiff's assertions that the Government's failure to remove and dispose of nuclear waste required Canal to provide facilities to "store SNF beyond the date when the Government was required to assume such obligations," and that the Government "forced nuclear utilities, including Canal, to expend their own resources to plan for the disposal of SNF," are classic breach of contract allegations. See Northern States Power Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 128 F.3d 754, 759 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff complains of being "deprived of the
Holding statements: (A) holding that the right of action accrued upon failure to perform contract (B) holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract (C) holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants (D) holding that utilities must pursue the remedies provided in the standard contract in the event that doe does not perform its duty to dispose of the snf by january 31 1998 (E) recognizing that a construction contract implicitly imposes a duty on contractors to perform work according to the standard of due care
[EX A]:
holding that the right of action accrued upon failure to perform contract