Definition: 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: of proof, then the opposing party is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law"); In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prod. Liab. Litig., 113 F.3d at 1492 (same). Furthermore, Gaston cannot overcome Perkins's stated legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating his employment. Therefore, that portion of Perkins's motion for summary judgment is granted. D. Discharge In Violation Of Public Policy Claim Gaston also asserts a state-law claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Gaston's complaint alleges that he was terminated in retaliation for pursuing his rights under Iowa workers' compensation laws. Iowa courts recognize a cause of action for common-law retaliatory discharge. See, e.g., Smith v. Smithway Motor Xpress, Inc., 464 N.W.2d 682, 686 (Iowa 1990) (<HOLDING>); Niblo v. Parr Mfg., Inc., 445 N.W.2d 351, 353
Holding statements: (A) holding that illinois cause of action for retaliation does not arise under its workers compensation laws (B) holding that missouris cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws (C) recognizing discharge in retaliation for pursuing rights under iowa workers compensation laws violates public policy and gives rise to commonlaw cause of action (D) holding that texas cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws (E) holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws
Output:
holding that illinois cause of action for retaliation does not arise under its workers compensation laws