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.

Input: Consider Input: conclude that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 did not render Title VII and 1981 the exclusive remedies for employment discrimination by a municipality and its employees, thereby preempting a constitutional cause of action under 1983. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss Johnson's 1983 claims. AFFIRMED. 1 . Count Eight asserts a 42 U.S.C. 1985 claim against the individual defendants for alleged conspiracy to violate Johnson's 1981 and Thirteenth Amendment rights. This count is not at issue on this appeal. 2 . The defendants also moved to dismiss the 1981 claim. The district court granted dismissal against the City only, citing Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 733, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 2722, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989) (<HOLDING>). 3 .We review de novo a question of law
Holding statements: (A) holding that 1983 is the exclusive federal remedy for violation of the rights guaranteed in 1981 by state governmental units (B) holding that title vii provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment (C) holding that title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 provides the exclusive remedy for claims of employment discrimination by federal agencies (D) holding that where it is alleged that state has violated rights conferred by constitution governmental immunity is not available in state court action but declining to infer a right to sue the state for damages on the basis of a violation of the michigan constitution (E) holding that 1983 does not provide a remedy if there is no violation of federal law

Output: holding that title vii provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment

Input: Consider Input: by " '(1) the peculiar dignity and protection to which the law cloaks the human person, as contrasted with articles of commerce; (2) the inequality of the bargaining positions and relative intelligence of the contracting parties; (3) the amount of consideration received; (4) the likelihood of inadequate knowledge concerning future consequences of present injury to the human body and brain; and (5) the haste, or lack thereof, with which release was obtained.' " Finch, 84 Wn.2d at 146 (quoting Finch v. Carlton, 10 Wn. App. 32, 39, 516 P.2d 212 (1973) (McInturff, J., dissenting)). 2 A few cases have imposed an affirmative duty to explain contracts when the defendants know the signer is illiterate or speaks another language. See Scott v. Bodnar, 52 N.J. Super. 439, 145 A.2d 643 (1958) (<HOLDING>); S. Pac. Co. v. Gastelum, 36 Ariz. 106, 283 P.
Holding statements: (A) holding failure to explain consequence of signature to illiterate plaintiff could be grounds for avoiding release (B) holding that failure to explain allegations and possible consequences mandated reversal (C) holding that failure to explain the effect of a term of supervised release was harmless error where term of imprisonment combined with maximum imprisonment for violation of supervised release was still less than statutory maximum (D) holding that 24 hours is sufficient time for a plaintiff to review release (E) holding that fundamental error occurred and reversal was required when trial court failed to explain allegations or to explain adequately future use of adjudication record

Output: holding that failure to explain allegations and possible consequences mandated reversal

Input: Consider Input: written consent unambiguously agreeing to removal. See id. at *2, n. 1 (stating that "a majority of courts,..., have taken a strict approach and have held a representation by one defendant in the notice of removal that all defendants have consented to be insufficient, requiring instead that each defendant independently notify the court of its consent." (internal citations omitted)). See also Ell v. S.E.T. Landscape Design, Inc., 34 F.Supp.2d 188, 194 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (stating that "unambiguous written evidence of consent" by all defendants is required.) Defendants contend that the court has discretion to keep the case because this is a non-jurisdictional defect and the Plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the delay in filing consent. See Gay v. Carlson, 1990 WL 20172 at *2 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (<HOLDING>). However, even though a defect in removal
Holding statements: (A) holding that removal was proper where the petitioning defendant stated that all parties agreed in its notice of removal and the petition was followed by the supplemental consent signed by each of the parties but filed outside the 30 day period (B) holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal (C) holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand (D) holding that amendment of removal petition was properly allowed to correct jurisdictional allegations in removal petition which were defective or faulty due to defendants failure to specifically allege the citizenship of the parties at the time the suit was brought and at the time the removal petition was filed missing allegation was not a fatal omission which could not be cured by amendment (E) holding that the absence in the notice of removal of copies of the summonses served on the defendants uncorrected until after the thirty 30 day removal period had expired violates 28 usc 1446a and bars removal
Output: holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal