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.
--------
Question: (Tex.2010) (orig. proceeding). Failure to exhaust administrative remedies creates a jurisdictional bar to proceeding with the claim. See City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147, 154 (Tex.2008) ("[Njoncompliance [with Chapter 21's administrative procedures] deprives courts of subject-matter, jurisdiction."); Smith v. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. of Dallas, 101 S.W.3d 185, 188 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). A would-be Chapter 21 claimant must first file an administrative complaint with the civil rights division of the Texas Workforce Commission. See Tex. Lab.Code Ann. 21.201(a) .(stating that an aggrieved person "may file a complaint with the commission"); id. 21.0015 (defining "commission" as "the Texas Workforce Commission civil rights division"); Schroeder, 813 S.W.2d at 486-88 (<HOLDING>). The complaint must be filed "not later than
Holding statements: (A) holding use of word may generally indicates permissive rather than mandatory intent (B) holding that a states use of the word shall is mandatory language (C) holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional (D) holding that administrative exhaustion is mandatory despite legislatures use of the word may (E) recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional

Answer: holding use of word may generally indicates permissive rather than mandatory intent

Question: plenary determination of jurisdiction over five landlocked canals); Weiszmann v. District Engineers, U.S. Army Corp, 526 F.2d 1302 (5th Cir.1976) (same outcome as in Sexton Cove in action brought by landowner); U.S. v. St. Bernard Parish, 589 F.Supp. 617 (E.D.La.1984) (plenary trial determining jurisdictional issue); U.S. v. Lambert 589 F.Supp. 366 (M.D.Fla.1984) (plenary trial determining property was a wetland; proof by preponderance of evidence was measure of government's burden of persuasion); U.S. v. Ciampitti, 583 F.Supp. 483 (D.N.J.1984) (in action for preliminary injunction, court made own determination that property was a wetland); U.S. v. City of Fort Pierre, 580 F.Supp. 1036 (D.S.D.1983) (plenary trial determining property was a wetland) rev'd, 747 F.2d 464 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Parkview Corp. v. Department of Army Corp of
Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property (B) holding property not a wetland (C) holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate (D) recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate (E) holding that because property was no longer property of the estate the court could not order turnover

Answer: holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property

Question: marks omitted)). Here, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that Gray's actions in asking a group of fellow customers to quiet down was not a normal and foreseeable consequence of Denny's failure to act on her request that an employee do so. Indeed, if Gray's version of events is credited, then her conduct evokes the precise risk contemplated by the scope of Denny's duty of care. See Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 315, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166, 169, 414 N.E.2d 666 (1980) ("An intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of responsibility, where the risk of the intervening act occurring is the very same risk which renders the actor negligent."); see also McKinnon v. Bell Sec., 268 A.D.2d 220, 221, 700 N.Y.S.2d 469, 471 (1st Dep't 2000) (<HOLDING>). Thus, a fact question arises as to whether
Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law (B) holding as a matter of law that natural condition present was open and obvious to all who would encounter it (C) holding it not unforeseeable as matter of law that plaintiff would approach suspect after security guard inexplicably released him (D) holding that it may be decided as a matter of law (E) holding that arkansas would not adopt the approach of reliance to resolve this case

Answer:
holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law