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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[EX Q]: Cordova's final policymaking authority concerning the termination or transfer of employees. For the aforesaid reasons, I conclude summary judgment should enter against Singer on the 1981 and 1983 claims against the School District. B. Liability of Cordova under 1981. I have concluded the School District is not liable to Singer under 1981. I consider Defendants' additional argument concerning the 1981 claim since it remains of relevance to Singer's 1981 claim against Cor-dova. Defendants argue 1981 does not apply to religious discrimination and the claim should be dismissed insofar as it is based on such discrimination. See Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat'l Lab., 992 F.2d 1033, 1036 n. 3 (10th Cir.1993); Manzanares v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 593 F.2d 968, 971 (10th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Singer cites the holding in Shaare Tefila
Holding statements: (A) holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination (B) holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex (C) holding that a violation of 1981 requires purposeful race discrimination (D) holding that racial discrimination is not a personal injury tort (E) holding 1981 is directed to racial discrimination although not necessarily limited to the technical or restrictive meaning of race but does not apply to sex or religious discrimination
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: the words of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, 'is of the very essence of judicial duty."\u2019) (internal citation omitted); Columbia Falls Elem. Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. State, 326 Mont. 304, 109 P.3d 257, 260-61 (2005) (rejecting Baker v. Carr-based political question argument and concluding that, "[a]s the final guardian and protector of the right to education, it is incumbent upon the court to assure that the system enacted by the Legislature enforces, protects and fulfills the right [to education]"); Claremont Sch. Dist. v. Governor, 138 N.H. 183, 635 A.2d 1375, 1381 (1993) (concluding that constitutional right to adequate education is justiciable and that "any citizen" has standing to "enforce the State's duty" to fulfill this right); Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145, 693 A.2d 417, 428-29 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State, 86
Holding statements: (A) holding in the absence of exceptional circumstances deference should be given to trial court (B) holding that a school board policy prohibiting employees from sending their children to private schools interfered with employees constitutional right to control the education of their children (C) holding that while legislative findings are due deference that cannot foreclose a courts constitutional analysis (D) holding that a trial courts statutory interpretation is given no deference on review (E) holding that while deference should be given to legislative content and performance standards it is still the courts duty to ensure that these standards together with funding measures comport with the constitutional guarantee of a thorough and efficient education for all new jersey school children
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: a year to file Edwards's fifty-one page federal habeas petition. War-droup accepted full-time employment and allegedly ceased working on Edwards's case four months after he had timely filed Edwards's habeas petition and the limitations period expired. See Mem. Op. at 9. Thus, to the extent that Wardroup "abandoned Edwards," it was after Wardroup had shepherded Edwards's federal habeas petition to court. Further, after he accepted this employment, Wardroup submitted a reply to Texas's response to Edwards's habeas submission, as well as a notice and full and timely briefing to us on his first COA request. It is difficult to see abandonment here, where Wardroup missed no deadlines and filed substantive arguments. See, e.g., Wilkins v. Stephens, 560 Fed.Appx. 299, 304 (5th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, Edwards has not alleged any
Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence was sufficient where inter alia the victim woke up to find the defendant on top of her and engaged in sex (B) holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted (C) holding inter alia that appellant must use local cpiu where available (D) holding no abandonment where inter alia counsel never missed a filing deadline and filed a lengthy petition on petitioners behalf (E) holding that court did not prejudice defendant by limiting his counsel to preestablished limitations on inter alia the scope of crossexamination
[EX A]:
(D)