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.

Q: Specifically, the EEOC regulations interpreting the Act provide that, in determining whether a claimant is disabled because he is significantly restricted in his ability to perform "either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes," a court may consider: The job from which the individual has been disqualified because of an impairment, and the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area, from which the individual is also disqualified because of the impairment (class of jobs). 29 C.F.R. 1630.20)(3)(ii)(B) (emphasis added). In making this determination, the reviewing court must decide whether the plaintiff is restricted in his or her ability to perform ei stems, Inc., 101 F.3d 346, (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). KCC argues on appeal that Burns's lifting
Holding statements: (A) holding that a lifting restriction of ten pounds did not constitute a physical impairment that substantially limited a major life activity (B) holding as a matter of law that a twentyfive pound lifting limitation particularly when compared to an average persons abilities does not constitute a significant restriction on ones ability to lift work or perform any other major life activity (C) holding that a lifting restriction did not substantially limit a computer technicians ability to engage in the major life activity of working (D) holding plaintiff with carpal tunnel syndrome who could not perform heavy lifting failed to meet burden of establishing substantial limitation in major life activity of work (E) holding that a twentyfive pounds lifting restriction did not substantially limit any major life activities

A: holding that a lifting restriction of ten pounds did not constitute a physical impairment that substantially limited a major life activity
****
Q: small pieces of the Walkway, or access to the Walkway, built upon it. See Def.-Int. Reply at p. 14 (noting that the second of two issues remaining for the Court to decide, given that the public trust doctrine gov erns a large portion of the land at issue, is "whether the state acted rationally in determining that access across the perpendicular paths and scattered small portions of the Walkway constructed on uplands is 'reasonably necessary' to protect that public's right of access to the remaining 88.7 percent of the Walkway that is situated on tidelands"). Plaintiffs' taking claims with respect to this small portion of the property at issue are governed by the reasonableness test enunciated in Matthews. See Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, 95 N.J. 306, 326, 471 A.2d 355 (1984) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 93, 83
Holding statements: (A) holding that public use of a beach was presumed to have originated by permission and to have continued as a license until some act of the public or public official asserted the use to be exercised as a matter of right rather than privilege (B) holding that in order to exercise its rights under the public trust doctrine the public must be given both access to and use of privatelyowned dry sand areas as reasonably necessary (C) holding that the borough of deals dedication of a portion of a beach for use by its residents only was immaterial given the public trust doctrines requirement that the public be afforded the right to enjoy all dry sand beaches owned by a municipality (D) holding that under the public standing doctrine it is only necessary that the relator shall be a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws (E) recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public

A: holding that public use of a beach was presumed to have originated by permission and to have continued as a license until some act of the public or public official asserted the use to be exercised as a matter of right rather than privilege
****
Q: knowingly and willfully failed to comply with all the requirements of this section, the court may dismiss the case with prejudice. When a trial court finds a petition does not comply with the statute, "it shall be returned together with a copy of [ 2008.1] and a statement of the reason or reasons for its return." Id. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to allow the trial court "to return the petition only if it does not comply with the requirements set forth in 2008.1(B) and (C)," and not for failure to state a claim. Lowe v. Monard, 1997 OK 100, 4, 942 P.2d 732, 733. 115 The Oklahoma Supreme Court "has often implicitly recognized the right of an imprisoned person to commence a private civil action against a third party." Mehdipour, 2003 OK 3 at 17, 65 P.3d at 274 (<HOLDING>). According to Mehdip-our, 12 0.8. 2008.1
Holding statements: (A) holding that attorneys fees under adea may not be recovered against a defendant who was not an employer of the plaintiff (B) holding that a ttca claim based on an officers allegedly negligent use of his service weapon was a claim for intentional tort not negligence (C) holding that plaintiff may be heard on his nonconstitutionally based tort claim against his former attorneys (D) holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination (E) holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal

A:
holding that attorneys fees under adea may not be recovered against a defendant who was not an employer of the plaintiff
****