You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
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.

that Eller has been involved in Eller and Sons Trees' procurement of the H-2B work visas pursuant to which the Plaintiff class is employed. Eller also was involved in hiring and promoting Eller and Sons Trees' visa-processing agents abroad, through whom Eller and Sons Trees' H-2B forestry workers are processed. This evidence, too, supports holding Eller personally liable under the FLSA and the AWPA. See Reich, 998 F.2d at 329 (manager participating in hiring found to be employer); Donovan, 747 F.2d at 972 (noting that the corporate officer personally selected the managers at every hotel); Shultz, 413 F.2d at 1300 (observing that president exercised hiring and firing authority over supervisory personnel); Hodgson v. Royal Crown Bottling Co., 324 F.Supp. 342, 347 (N.D.Miss.1970) (<HOLDING>). Defendants admit that Eller was involved in
Holding statements: (A) holding that countersurveillance driving is a fact indicative of illegal activity (B) holding board had jurisdiction when employer had final authority over the essential terms and conditions of employment including wages benefits hiring firing promotion discipline and grievances although employer was subject to various governmentimposed restrictions (C) holding that to determine whether the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee the court examines if there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the employers stated reason for the firing is pretext (D) holding that firing authority is indicative of employer status (E) holding that unprovoked flight is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing but it is certainly suggestive of such
Output:
holding that countersurveillance driving is a fact indicative of illegal activity