instruction:
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:
. . . 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
answer:
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

question:
Clause. 13. Respondent's main interest in this case is his right to run for elected office. In general, the federal courts have declined to hold that the right to run for elective office is "fundamental," a position that was applied in the seminal Clements decision. There, a plurality of the high court held that "[f]ar from recognizing candidacy as a fundamental right, we have held that the existence of barriers to a candidate's access to the ballot does not of itself compel close scrutiny." 457 U.S. at 963 405, 420 (W. Va. 2000) (concluding that constitutional provision forcing judges to vacate office before running for nonjudicial office was supported by "State's compelling and permissible interest"); Wagner v. Milwaukee County Election Comm'n, 2003 WI 103, 78, 666 N.W.2d 816 (<HOLDING>). 16. Respondent's constitutional arguments
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights (B) holding right to testify was federal constitutional right (C) holding that states legitimate interests in enacting constitutional provision prohibiting judges from holding other public office far outweigh the burdens put upon the petitioners right to be a candidate for office (D) holding that a school superintendent does not have a constitutional right to actually hold his position and execute the duties of the office (E) holding constitutional provision selfexecuting if it grants right that can be put into operation without further legislative action
answer:
recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights

question:
that both designated representatives for each of the proposed initiatives at issue here complied with this statutory mandate. In so doing, they certified that they were aware not only that they were required to attend all meetings at which their proposed initiatives would be considered, but also that any motion for rehearing would be heard at the Board's next meeting or within forty-eight hours after the expiration of the seven-day deadline for filing such motions. See 1-40-107(1)(a). The email to Mr. Ottke and Mr. Slota from the Secretary of State's office suggesting that they were not required to attend the meeting on the motion for rehearing did not relieve them of their clear statutory obligation to do so. Cf. Comm. for Better Health Care v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884, 892 (Colo.1992) (<HOLDING>). III. Conclusion T31 Because the Title Board
Holding statements: (A) holding that the 1991 mixedmotive amendments do not apply to 1981 based on an independent analysis of the amendments and 1981 (B) holding that the ada amendments act does not apply to preamendment conduct (C) holding that where initiative proponents were provided with copies of relevant statutory amendments and related documents proponents did not reasonably rely on statements by the secretary of state to assume that amendments did not apply to their initiative (D) holding that amendments to procedure apply to both pending and future matters (E) holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively
answer:
holding that the 1991 mixedmotive amendments do not apply to 1981 based on an independent analysis of the amendments and 1981