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: States Dist. Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). The Supreme Court has recognized that "searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). However, the Supreme Court has permitted exceptions to the warrant requirement when "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable." New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment) (allowing school officials to conduct warrantless searches of student property without probable cause); see also O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873-74,
Holding statements: (A) holding searches conducted without a warrant based on probable cause are presumptively unreasonable (B) holding neither the warrant requirement nor the probable cause requirement should apply to noninvestigatory workrelated purposes or for investigations of workrelated misconduct (C) holding a person may consent to warrantless searches as a condition of a suspended sentence (D) holding 1983 action lies for warrantless arrest without probable cause (E) holding that government employers may conduct warrantless workrelated searches of employees offices without probable cause

SOLUTION: holding searches conducted without a warrant based on probable cause are presumptively unreasonable

PROBLEM: 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

SOLUTION: 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

PROBLEM: III, Section 32 of the Pennsylvania Constitution), the Deputy Sheriffs, as police officers, fall within the scope of Act 111. For these reasons, I would reverse the PLRB's decision and remand with direction that the PLRB grant the Association's petition for certification. Judge McGINLEY joins in this dissenting opinion. 1 . The Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act, Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, as amended, 43 P.S. 217.1 to .10, is commonly referred to as Act 111. 2 . 53 Pa.C.S. 2162. 3 . 18 Pa.C.S. 103. 4 . I agree with the majority's rejection of the County's constitutional argument based on Article III, Section 31 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. (Maj. Op. at 12 n.ll.) 5 . See Pa. Const, art. Ill, 31; see also Harney v. Russo, 435 Pa. 183, 255 A.2d 560 (1969)
Holding statements: (A) holding act 111 valid under pennsylvania constitution (B) holding that an amended complaint alleging injuries to the driver caused by an auto accident which were allegedly the result of defendants negligence and that pennsylvania survival act was the basis for the cause of action stated a valid survival claim under pennsylvania law (C) holding that when majority of class lived in new jersey maryland pennsylvania and virginia the eastern district of pennsylvania was a desirable forum (D) holding pennsylvania replevin statute unconstitutional (E) holding pennsylvania state ethics act unconstitutional as applied to former judges

SOLUTION:
holding that an amended complaint alleging injuries to the driver caused by an auto accident which were allegedly the result of defendants negligence and that pennsylvania survival act was the basis for the cause of action stated a valid survival claim under pennsylvania law