Instructions: 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.
Input: of employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C. 623(a)(1). A commonsense reading of this statement strongly suggests that the statute includes a requirement of intentional discrimination. See Ellis v. United Airlines, Inc., 73 F.3d 999, 1007 (10th Cir.1996) ("It would be a stretch to read the phrase 'because of such individual's age' to prohibit incidental and unintentional discrimination that resulted because of employment decisions which were made for reasons other than age.") (emphasis in original). However, Title VII contains parallel language, and the Supreme Court concluded almost three decades ago that such language encompassed a theory of liability based on disparate impact. See Chiggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971) (<HOLDING>). The question, then, is whether the ADEA,
Holding statements: (A) holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii (B) holding that employment practices which are neutral in form but which result in discriminatory effects are prohibited unless justified by business necessity (C) holding that title vii proscribes racial discrimination against whites upon the same standards as racial discrimination against nonwhites (D) holding that title vii proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation (E) holding that discriminatory employment practices are cognizable under title ix
Output:
holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii