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:
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

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

Ex Input:
rule is limited to questions that seek evidence about the informant's police sanctioned conduct in apprehending a suspect, then the informant's claim of privilege under such circumstances would be spurious. In this context he is immune from prosecution. We believe that this is the correct limitation because Norman is premised on a line of cases holding that state agents are not accomplices to illegal conduct of which they are charged to discover. Norman quotes Ex parte Turner, 545 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.Cr.App.1977) for the proposition that the law is well settled that if an informant is acting as a state agent, then the informant's claim of privilege under the Fifth Amendment is spurious. Id. at 344. In turn, Turner, supra, is premised upon Woodward v. State, 490 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) (<HOLDING>). See also, Vela v. State, 373 S.W.2d 505
Holding statements: (A) holding that an employer who caused his agent to commit a crime in another county was deemed to have been personally present where the crime occurred (B) holding that an undercover agent is not an accomplice as long as the agent does not bring about the crime but merely obtains evidence to be used against those engaged in crime (C) holding that expert testimony of irs agent regarding tax liability did not usurp the function of the jury as agent did not give her opinion about the guilt of the defendant (D) holding that a private citizen acting as undercover agent is not an accomplice witness so long as he does not bring about the crime (E) holding that the employer was not the insurers agent

Ex Output:
holding that an employer who caused his agent to commit a crime in another county was deemed to have been personally present where the crime occurred

Ex Input:
L.Ed.2d 554 (2000); Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 617-18, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984). The Associations claim that serving as an official proponent is protected by the Free Speech Clause, and thus that they have a right to associate for the purpose of serving as official proponents. Thus, if serving as an official proponent is not an aspect of free speech, the condition imposed by the elector requirement does not violate the associational rights of the First Amendment. See Dale, 530 U.S. at 648, 120 S.Ct. 2446 ("To determine whether a group is protected by the First Amendment's expressive associational right, we must determine whether the group engages in 'expressive association.'"); City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 25, 109 S.Ct. 1591, 104 L.Ed.2d 18 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Because the Associations' claim regarding
Holding statements: (A) holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity (B) holding that the first amendment does not protect true threats against the president (C) recognizing first amendment retaliation right (D) holding first amendment does not protect nonexpressive conduct (E) holding that there is no first amendment right of access to presentence reports

Ex Output:
holding that the first amendment does not protect true threats against the president