Teacher: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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: Martucci, Missouri Practice Series, Employment Law and Practice section 5:20 (2013-2014 ed.2013) (noting that whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive "generally is a factual issue for the jury, and the finding of sufficient severity depends on the nature and degree of the conduct"). " 'Once -there is evidence of improper conduct and subjective offense, the determination of whether the conduct rose to the level of abuse is largely in the hands of the jury.' " Cooper, 204 S.W.3d at 245 (quoting Howard v. Burns Bros., Inc., 149 F.3d 835, 840 (8th Cir.1998) (emphasis added)). Summary judgment will rarely be appropriate, therefore, in discriminatory harassment cases that turn on whether an employer's conduct is objectively severe or pervasive. Cf. Daugherty, 231 S.W.3d at 818 (<HOLDING>). Rather, once subjectively offensive conduct
Holding statements: (A) holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if the resolution of material issues depends upon credibility determinations (B) holding that in title vii cases the mixedmotives theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination (C) holding that because discrimination cases often depend on inferences rather than on direct evidence summary judgment should not be granted unless the evidence could not support any reasonable inference for the nonmovant and summary judgment is appropriate in such cases only in those rare instances where there is no dispute of fact and where there exists only one conclusion quoting johnson 931 f2d at 1244 (D) holding that in title vii cases the mixedmotive theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination (E) holding that summary judgment is rarely appropriate in employment discrimination cases where determination of discriminatory animus requires the resolution of factual disputes that turn on reasonable inferences
Student:
holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if the resolution of material issues depends upon credibility determinations