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.
--------
Question: that in December 1995, his wage was $8.67 per hour. Lewis stated that a Caucasian employee, who misrepresented his knowledge of desktop publishing, was hired at a rate of $9.00 per hour in his department. This employee ultimately was "[p]ushed out the door." Supp.App. at 354. Lewis also stated that another Caucasian employee received a pay increase from $7.50 to $8.25 per hour after he went from part-time to full-time status, and that a third Caucasian employee told him that he received a raise after his father called the store manager. The District Court held that Lewis failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he had not shown that the employees he identified were similarly situated to him. See Watson v. Eastman Kodak Co., 235 F.3d 851, 857-58 (3d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Finally, on his wrongful termination claim,
Holding statements: (A) holding that caucasian employees who engaged in the same act as the plaintiff but it did not result in injury to others were not similarly situated (B) holding that a plaintiff who did not show that he was paid at a lower rate than similarly situated employees could not survive summary judgment (C) holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim (D) holding that employees of differing seniority levels were not similarly situated (E) holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated

Answer: holding that caucasian employees who engaged in the same act as the plaintiff but it did not result in injury to others were not similarly situated

Question: 398, 407 (1988) (concluding that the act of inserting an adult's tongue into a child's mouth constituted an "immoral, improper, or indecent" act within the meaning of N.C.G.S. 14-202.1(a)(1) and a "lewd or lascivious" act within the meaning of N.C.G.S. 14-202.1(a)(2)); State v. Hammett, 182 N.C. App. 316, 323, 642 S.E.2d 454, 459 (concluding that masturbating in a child's presence constituted an offense punishable pursuant to N.C.G.S. 14-202.1(a)(2)), appeal dismissed and disc. rev. denied, 361 N.C. 572, 651 S.E.2d 227 (2007); State v. Turman, 52 N.C. App. 376, 377, 278 S.E.2d 574, 575 (1981) (concluding that masturbating in a child's presence constituted an offense pursuant to N.C.G.S. 14-202.1(a)(l)); cf. State v. Jones, 172 N.C. App. 308, 314-16, 616 S.E.2d 15, 19-20 (2005) (<HOLDING>). In light of these decisions, at least four
Holding statements: (A) holding that single substantial act can support exercise of personal jurisdiction (B) holding that multiple convictions under 924c cannot be based on offenses forming a single unit of prosecution (C) holding that a single act cannot support two convictions under both ncgs 142021al and ncgs 142021a 2 respectively (D) recognizing that dui manslaughter and vehicular homicide are two separate crimes neither being a lesser included offense of the other but holding that a single death cannot support convictions for both crimes (E) holding that separate sentences may be imposed for a violation of section 36bd and the predicate offense where both convictions were the result of the same act so long as the charges are brought in a single trial

Answer: holding that single substantial act can support exercise of personal jurisdiction

Question: examination, in response to a question from the prosecutor asking her whether the two men in her garage "could" have been Billings and Ross, Quick answered, "Yes." Billings and Ross both objected, and the trial court sustained the objection on the ground that the testimony was mere speculation. The court instructed the jury to disregard Quick's answer. Billings then moved for a mistrial, but Ross did not make his own mistrial motion or join in Billings's motion. The court denied Billings's motion. Ross asserts that Billings's motion for a mistrial was sufficient to preserve the issue so that Ross can challenge the trial court's denial of the motion on appeal. That is incorrect; Ross forfeited his right to appeal that ruling. See Mathis v. State, 291 Ga. 268, 271 (728 SE2d 661) (2012) (<HOLDING>); Stokes v. State, 281 Ga. 875, 877 (644 SE2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal (B) holding that the court bars a party from raising an issue on remand that was not raised on appeal (C) holding that failure to object does not preclude raising the issue on appeal where erroneous evidence is offered in violation of an order in limine (D) holding that a defendants failure to object or join in a codefendants objection to an issue bars the defendant from raising the issue on appeal (E) holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal

Answer:
holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal