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.

Ex Input:
an intention that suits for pension benefits by disappointed applicants are equitable."), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1112, 101 S.Ct. 922, 66 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981); see also Sullivan v. LTV Aerospace and Defense Co., 82 F.3d 1251, 1258-59 (2d Cir.1996); Berry v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 761 F.2d 1003, 1007 (4th Cir.985); Turner v. CF & I Steel Corp., 770 F.2d 43, 47 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1058, 106 S.Ct. 800, 88 L.Ed.2d 776 (1986); In re Vorpahl, 695 F,2d 318, 321-22 (8th Cir.1982); Calamia v. Spivey, 632 F.2d 1235, 1237 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980). Some district courts have suggested that Firestone Tire & Rubber v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989), calls these holdings into doubt. See, e.g., Hulcher v. United Behavioral Sys., 919 F.Supp. 879, 885 (E.D.Va.1995) (<HOLDING>); Vaughn v. Owen Steel Co., 871 F.Supp. 247,
Holding statements: (A) holding that 1132a1b affords the plaintiff adequate relief for her benefits claim and a cause of action under 1132a3 is thus not appropriate (B) holding plaintiff had no claim under 1132a3 because his grievance that benefits were denied is specifically addressed in 1132a1b (C) holding that plaintiff in erisa action was entitled to restitution under similar circumstances (D) holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan (E) holding that action to recover erisa benefits under the subject plan are legal in nature and that plaintiff is constitutionally entitled to trial by jury on any claim raised under 1132a1b

Ex Output:
holding that 1132a1b affords the plaintiff adequate relief for her benefits claim and a cause of action under 1132a3 is thus not appropriate

Ex Input:
. . . there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision[s]." Murray v. St. Michael's Coll., 164 Vt. 205, 210, 667 A.2d 294, 299 (1995). In Burlington Northern, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under Title VII need show only that "a reasonable employee [in the employee's situation] would have found the challenged action materially adverse," meaning that it well might have dissuaded a reasonable employee from engaging in the protected activity. 548 U.S. at 68. 34. Assuming, without deciding, that this is the standard to apply with respect to retaliation claims brought under 21 V.S.A. 710(b), we conclude that the limited video surveillance in this case in connectio v., 37 F.3d 1146, 1150 (5th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). 35. But in this case, if the release
Holding statements: (A) holding that the former wife did not waive her attorneyclient privilege simply because the credibility of her claim that she relied on her husbands representations could be impeached by deposing her former attorney (B) holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment (C) holding that because a claimant testified that she had no insurance and could not afford treatment her failure to take medication for her symptoms is not a clear and convincing reason for discrediting her symptom testimony (D) holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties (E) holding that the employee was acting within the course of her employment when she died while returning from the workrelated session because her death occurred on a public highway which was brought within the scope of her employment by her employers requirement that she attend training at the state police academy

Ex Output:
holding that the former wife did not waive her attorneyclient privilege simply because the credibility of her claim that she relied on her husbands representations could be impeached by deposing her former attorney

Ex Input:
that the officer's observation of Kaigler sitting in his car was an insufficient basis for establishing a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity in other words, that the stop was-illegal. After the trial court ordered the cocaine suppressed, defense counsel argued that the other two counts should be-dismissed because the State could no longer prove a statutory element of each of these charges: that the officer was "in the lawful execution of any legal duty," 843.01 (resisting with violence), or "engaged in the lawful performance of his or her duties," 784.07(2) (battery of a law enforcement officer). The court's denial of the motion to dismiss these remaining counts forms the basis of this appeal. Narrowly stated, the question p an v. State, 807 So.2d 106, 110 (Fla. 5th DCA) (<HOLDING>), review granted, 835 So.2d 271 (Fla.2002). But
Holding statements: (A) holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had (B) holding that while the state must prove that the alleged victim was a law enforcement officer who was engaged in the lawful execution or performance of a legal duty the technical illegality of that action does not justify resisting with violence or battering the officer (C) holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in not instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence when that element was in dispute at trial (D) holding that an officer or employee of the tennessee valley authority was not an officer or employee acting under the authority of the united states or any department or any officer of the government thereof within the meaning of a criminal statute first enacted in 1884 (E) holding police officer who was shot by occupier of premises could not recover from premises owner for injuries the officer should have reasonably expected to sustain while engaged in the line of duty

Ex Output:
holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had