Given the task definition and input, reply with output. 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.

old. He claimed that he was "singled out and targeted for firing" and that "[n]o younger people were terminated for similar allegations." Appellees moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the only proper defendant in an employment discrimination lawsuit against the United States government is the head of the agency, sued solely in his official capacity, and that Lynn's claim for punitive damages should be dismissed as punitive damages cannot be sought against the federal government or an agency. Over Lynn's objections, the District Court agreed, dismissing all defendants save the Secretary of Defense, as the head of the DLA, and dismissing Lynn's claim for punitive damages. See Brown v. General Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 835, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976) (<HOLDING>); 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (stating that the
Holding statements: (A) holding that physician was an independent contractor and thus could not sue hospital under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 (B) holding that surgeon with surgical privileges was not an employee of hospital and thus could not bring suit under either the age discrimination in employment act or title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 (C) holding that title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 provides the exclusive remedy for claims of employment discrimination by federal agencies (D) holding that title vii provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment (E) recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap
holding that physician was an independent contractor and thus could not sue hospital under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964