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.

Cordova’s final policymaking authority concerning the termination or transfer of employees. For the aforesaid reasons, I conclude summary judgment should enter against Singer on the § 1981 and § 1983 claims against the School District. B. Liability of Cordova under § 1981. I have concluded the School District is not liable to Singer under § 1981. I consider Defendants’ additional argument concerning the § 1981 claim since it remains of relevance to Singer’s § 1981 claim against Cor-dova. Defendants argue § 1981 does not apply to religious discrimination and the claim should be dismissed insofar as it is based on such discrimination. See Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat’l Lab., 992 F.2d 1033, 1036 n. 3 (10th Cir.1993); Manzanares v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 593 F.2d 968, 971 (10th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Singer cites the holding in Shaare Tefila 
 Holding statements: (A) holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination (B) holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex (C) holding that a violation of  1981 requires purposeful race discrimination (D) holding that racial discrimination is not a personal injury tort (E) holding  1981 is directed to racial discrimination although not necessarily limited to the technical or restrictive meaning of race but does not apply to sex or religious discrimination
(E)

of death which does not meet these requirements is voidable by the donor (if he recovers) or his personal representative. Hulley v. Chedic, 22 Nev. 127,146, 36 P. 783 (1894). In other words, a gift in contemplation of death'is presumptively voidable by the personal representative of the deceased, and the presumption may be rebutted by the donee with clear and convincing evidence of the six elements listed above. Although Goldsworthy and Hulley are the only Nevada cases ever to have examined the gift causa mortis doctrine, and they have never been overruled, at least one Nevada case has suggested (in a different context) that the burden of proof may not be on the donee. North Arlington Medical Building, Inc. v. Sanchez Construction Company, 86 Nev. 515, 521, 471 P.2d 240, 244 (Nev.1970) (<HOLDING>). North Arlington is not really on point, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable (B) holding that inter vivos gift to minor is presumptively effective under nrs 167040 (C) holding that the purpose of nrs 1760551 is to ensure that all time served is credited towards a defendants ultimate sentence (D) holding that belowguidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable (E) holding a delay approaching one year is presumptively unreasonable
(B)

Plaintiff and none of whom were terminated. (PI. Facts ¶¶ 108-109; PI. Ex. A, Enclosure # 2). But a reasonable factfinder could not conclude based on these facts alone that Fisher acted with invidious purpose. There is no showing that the younger store managers had received the same degree of negative reviews as had Plaintiff — i.e., that they were “similarly situated” — nor that Januus had been qualified for his job. There are no facts whatsoever about the abilities or performance of these store managers; Plaintiffs table merely provides the ages of the other store managers under Fisher’s control and whether or not they were terminated. This sort of raw data does not support a finding invidious intent. See Ezold v. Wolf, Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 542-43 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs description of the discriminatory 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision (B) holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations (C) holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint (D) holding raw numerical comparisons between the number of male and female partners when not accompanied by any analysis of either the qualified applicant pool or the flow of qualified candidates over a relevant period of time was not relevant to a showing of pretext (E) holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity

(D)

