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.

Ex Input:
if the terms of the health care plan specifically exclude from coverage the cost of an appendectomy, then any injuries caused by the refusal to cover the appendectomy are properly attributed to the terms of the plan itself, not the managed care entity that applied those terms. 4 Respondents also argue that ERISA 502(a) completely pre-empts a state cause of action only if the cause of action would be pre-empted under ERISA 514(a); respondents then argue that their causes of action do not fall under the terms of 514(a). But a state cause of action that provides an alternative remedy to those provided by the ERISA civil enforcement mechanism conflicts with Congress' clear intent to make the ERISA mechanism exclusive. See Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U. S.133, 142 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 5 ERISA 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U. S. C.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan (B) recognizing cause of action (C) holding that ejven if there were no express preemption under erisa 514a of the cause of action in that case it would be preempted because it conflicted directly with an erisa cause of action (D) recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa (E) recognizing the cause of action

Ex Output:
(C)

Ex Input:
breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured." 11 U.S.C. 101(5)(B). Thus, it is clear that, under some circumstances, injunctions can constitute claims which are dischargeable in bankruptcy. The court must determine whether this case presents such a circumstance. A number of courts have considered whether an injunction prohibiting future breaches of a noncompete agreement can constitute a claim under Section 101(5)(B), reaching conflicting results based on a variety of reasonings. See e.g., In re Oseen, 133 B.R. 527 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1991) (finding that the injunction did not constitute a claim); In re Udell, 18 F.3d 403 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); In re Ward, 194 B.R. 703 (Bankr.D.Mass.1996)
Holding statements: (A) holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim (B) holding an appeal of injunction moot where the injunction expired three months before the appellate court heard arguments in the case (C) holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction (D) holding federal injunction countermanding a state court injunction did not violate antiinjunction act (E) holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified

Ex Output:
(A)

Ex Input:
The allegations of retaliation found in the FAC are not "like or reasonably related" to the allegations contained in the charge. Nor are the new claims of retaliation consistent with Plaintiffs original theory of the case sex discrimination and hostile work environment. Plaintiffs EEOC charge does not include an allegation of retaliation or facts that would support the claim of retaliation she now makes. Her charge to the EEOC was narrow in scope, focusing exclusively on sex discrimination. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff did not exhaust her retaliation claim at the administrative level and will dismiss her retaliation claims under Title VII and ACRA for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Epps v. Phoenix Elementary Sch. Dist., 2009 WL 996308 (D.Ariz. April 14, 2009) (<HOLDING>). B. Negligent Misrepresentation (Third Claim
Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim where his eeoc charge made no mention of retaliation (B) 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 (C) holding that if the alleged retaliatory action occurs before the initial eeoc charge is filed a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies as to that claim by including factual information in the charge that discloses the factual basis for the retaliation claim (D) holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim (E) holding court did not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs retaliation claim where plaintiff did not check the retaliation box or describe anything that indicates such a claim in the eeoc complaint

Ex Output:
(A)