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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

. . . 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
(B)

would, in general, slow down the dispute resolution process." Id. at 946, 115 S.Ct. 1920. Moreover, it was rejected as "legally erroneous," for the "basic objective in this area is not to resolve disputes in the quickest manner possible, no matter what the parties' wishes, but to ensure that commercial arbitration agreements, like other contracts, are enforced according to their terms and according to the intentions of the parties." Id. at 946, 115 S.Ct. 1920. C. In This Case, The Question Of Arbitrability Is For The Court The second question is whether the power to determine arbitrability resides with the court or the AAA Panel. The answer turns upon what the parties agreed to about that question in the Merger Agreement. First Option 543, 546-547, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964)(<HOLDING>). Similarly, a disagreement about whether an
Holding statements: (A) holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation (B) holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement (C) holding trial court must decide whether to compel arbitration of personal injury claim of party who was not signatory to arbitration agreement (D) holding that in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration a court must consider 1 whether the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement 2 whether an arbitrable issue exists and 3 whether the right to arbitration has been waived (E) holding that a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide
(A)

or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.... 42 U.S.C.S. 1983 (LexisNexis 2002). 6 . Given our disposition and the posture of the case, we need not determine whether the Howeth parties' reservation of section-1983 claims against the individual defendants, based on the individuals' participation in an alleged regulatory taking, was effective. See San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of S.F., Cal, 545 U.S. 323, 346, 125 S.Ct. 2491, 2506, 162 L.Ed.2d 315 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Halloo Tex., Inc. v. McMullen County, 221
Holding statements: (A) holding that a determination of whether the defendants actions constituted a taking under the louisiana constitution does not implicate any issues of federal law and thus does not provides a basis for a federal district court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction (B) holding that collateral estoppel applies only where the antecedent judgment was a final judgment (C) holding that collateral estoppel applies to 1983 claims (D) holding that the domesticrelations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction does not prevent federal courts from adjudicating a tort action when the plaintiffs do not contest the validity of the state custody decree because the tort issues were not entangled with issues that only state courts are competent to resolve (E) holding that reservation of federal asapplied takings claims that have issues that are not distinct from antecedent state issues does not defeat application of collateral estoppel in later federal suit
(E)