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:
contractual obligation." Peralta v. Cendant Corp., 123 F.Supp.2d at 65. See Belgrave v. City of N.Y., 1999 WL 692034, *45 (E.D.N.Y.1999) (Gleeson, J.)(dismissing the plaintiffs breach of contract claim where employee claimed that employer failed to follow its procedures for providing equal opportunity to employees); Mutua v. Tex. Roadhouse Mgmt. Corp., 753 F.Supp.2d 954, 968-69 (D.S.D.2010) (Schreier, J.Xgranting summary judgment on a breach-of-contract claim seeking to enforce the anti-discrimination provisions in the employer's employee handbook, because the employer already must abide by Title VII and a promise to perform a legal duty is not consideration for a return promise); Byra-Grzegorczyk v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 572 F.Supp.2d 233, 254 (D.Conn.2008) (Kravitz, J.)(<HOLDING>); Gally v. Columbia Univ., 22 F.Supp.2d 199,
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that idea is simply not an antidiscrimination statute so that pure discrimination claim was not barred by parents failure to exhaust remedies under idea (B) holding that an administrative agency or a state courts finding that an employer had just cause to terminate a plaintiff is not preclusive with regard to the plaintiffs discrimination claim against the employer (C) recognizing that an antidiscrimination policy does not indicate that an employer is undertaking any contractual obligations towards the employee rather it requires the employer to comply with federal and state antidiscrimination laws (D) holding that the employee must at least provide his employer with enough information for the employer to be put on notice that the fmla is a consideration (E) holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work

Ex Output:
recognizing that idea is simply not an antidiscrimination statute so that pure discrimination claim was not barred by parents failure to exhaust remedies under idea

Ex Input:
negligence placed the plaintiff...." Brown v. Philadelphia Coll, of Osteopathic Med., 449 Pa.Super. 667, 674 A.2d 1130, 1135-36 (1996). Russell's actions were intentional, not negligent. The impact rule, which depends upon the negligence of a defendant, is therefore inapposite to this case. 7 . Because DiSalvio's federal cause of action survives Russell's Motion to Dismiss, the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over DiSalvio's remaining state law claims. 9 . Unlike the School District Defendants, Russell has not argued that this tort is unavailable to plaintiffs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 10 . The Court similarly rejects Russell's argument that DiSalvio cannot recover punitive damages from him under her 1983 claim. See Coleman v. Kaye, 87 F.3d 1491, 1497 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 11 . DiSalvio suggests that Magill should
Holding statements: (A) holding that punitive damages may be awarded for egregious violations of the lmrda (B) holding that punitive damages may be imposed against employer for tortious conduct of employee (C) holding that punitive damages may be awarded under 1983 when the defendants conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others (D) holding that a supervisor with no personal involvement may be liable for the constitutional violation of a subordinate for culpable action or inaction in the training supervision or control of his subordinates acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation or reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others (E) holding that since the complaint set out a deliberate indifference claim it follows logically that reckless or callous indifference has been noticed

Ex Output:
holding that punitive damages may be awarded for egregious violations of the lmrda

Ex Input:
Equal Protection Clause's prohibition and is therefore subject to the most exacting scrutiny. Shaw, at -, 113 S.Ct. at 2824. Such action will be upheld only if it is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. Id. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 2825. The defendants first argue that the court should not apply the strict scrutiny reserved for racial classifications to the plaintiffs' equal protection claim because Native Americans are a political group, not a race. They rely on a line of Supreme Court decisions holding that federal statutes singling out Native Americans for special treatment do not violate equal protection guarantees. See, e.g., Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 500-01, 99 S.Ct. 740, 761, 58 L.Ed.2d 740 (1979) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641,
Holding statements: (A) holding that state failed to assume even partial jurisdiction in compliance with public law 280 (B) holding that a state law that allowed the state to assume only partial jurisdiction over indians and indian territory did not require strict scrutiny and was rationally related to a valid state objective (C) holding that indian tribes could only exercise criminal jurisdiction over tribal members and not other indians (D) holding that state of south dakota does not have criminal jurisdiction over indians in indian country (E) holding that the state of oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to make an arrest within indian country where the state had neither received by express grant nor acted pursuant to congressional authorization to assume criminal jurisdiction over the reservation

Ex Output:
holding that state failed to assume even partial jurisdiction in compliance with public law 280