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: Erickson-Puttmann concedes that her Title VII claim against Gill fails because Gill was not her employer. See e.g., Bonomolo-Hagen v. Clay Central-Everly Community Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 446, 447 (8th Cir.1997) ("Our Court quite recently has squarely held that supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII." (citing Spencer v. Ripley County State Bank, 123 F.3d 690, 691-92 (8th Cir.1997) (per cu-riam))). Lenhardt v. Basic Inst, of Tech., Inc., 55 F.3d 377, 381 (8th Cir.1995) (noting that "[e]very circuit that has considered the issue ultimately has concluded that an employee, even one possessing supervisory authority, is not an employer upon whom liability can be imposed under Title VII."); Smith v. St. Bernards Reg'l Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the court concludes that summary
Holding statements: (A) holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii (B) holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii (C) holding individual employees may be liable under title vii (D) holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii (E) holding that there is no individual liability under title vii

SOLUTION: holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii

PROBLEM: to foreclosure for mortgagors who are in default before initiating foreclosure proceedings pursuant to the National Housing Act, specifically 12 U.S.C. 1701-x(c)(5) (effective July 30, 2008), and pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Walkers contend that they were never offered counseling services or any other loss-mitigation services before the foreclosure sale. Although the record does not contain evidence indicating that the Walkers were provided counseling or other loss-mitigation services before foreclosure, this court has determined that any alleged failure to comply with loss-mitigation procedures does not constitute a valid defense to an ejectment action following a nonjudicial foreclosure. See Coleman, 104 So.3d at 206 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the alleged failure to exhaust all
Holding statements: (A) holding that a department of defense report was inadmissible (B) holding that because the department of revenue is subordinate to the board of tax review in the decision making process the department is not an adversely affected or aggrieved party having standing to petition for judicial review of the boards order reversing a decision of the department (C) holding that a failure to comply with the foreclosure statutes invalidates a foreclosure sale (D) holding that in the absence of a statute or controlling authority from our supreme court to the contrary we conclude that the failure of a foreclosing entity to comply with department of housing and urban development or department of veterans affairs lossmitigation requirements may not be raised as a defense to an ejectment action following a nonjudicial foreclosure (E) holding nonparty department of mental health had standing to appeal commitment order regarding person found not guilty by reason of insanity because department had direct interest that was affected by commitment order and because employees of the department conceivably could be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order

SOLUTION: holding that a department of defense report was inadmissible

PROBLEM: does not mean that an employee may not sue a union for the union's independent breach of a collective bargaining agreement unless the employee can establish that the union also breached its duty of fair representation. When the employee alleges that the union itself has breached an obligation to the employee under the collective bargaining agreement, the policy reasons for requiring a violation of the duty of fair representation in the hybrid suits no longer apply. Proof of the contractual violation alone should suffice, without requiring the employee also to establish that the union violated its duty of fair representation with conduct that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. Cf. United Steelworkers v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362, 374, 110 S.Ct. 1904, 1912, 109 L.Ed.2d 362 (1990) (<HOLDING>); IBEW v. Hechler, 481 U.S. 851, 864-65 & n. 7,
Holding statements: (A) holding that union policy of furnishing only its members with legal counsel in connection with grievances under collective bargaining agreement violated unions duty of fair representation under federal service labormanagement relations statute (B) holding that a union may breach its duty of fair representation by rejecting an employees interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement if the unions interpretation is itself arbitrary or unreasonable (C) holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union (D) holding that union could contractually undertake in collective bargaining agreement other duties towards member employees in addition to statutorilyimposed duty of fair representation (E) holding that petitioners remedy under title vii of the civil rights act was in addition to remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement in force between his employer and his union

SOLUTION:
holding that union policy of furnishing only its members with legal counsel in connection with grievances under collective bargaining agreement violated unions duty of fair representation under federal service labormanagement relations statute