IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT SMITH, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Case No. 11-cv-9147 

 ) 

 v. ) Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. 

 ) 

ROSEBUD FARMSTAND, ROQUE ) 

MENDOZA, and CARLOS CASTANEDA, ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

 

FILED 12/15/2015

THOMAS G. BRUTON CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

JSL

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 1 of 41 PageID #:3963
2 

 Members of the jury, you have seen and heard all the evidence and arguments of the 

attorneys. Now I will instruct you on the law. 

 You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence in 

the case. This is your job, and yours alone. 

 Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. You must follow these 

instructions, even if you disagree with them. Each of the instructions is important, and you must 

follow all of them. 

 Perform these duties fairly and impartially. 

 Nothing I say now, and nothing I said or did during the trial, is meant to indicate any 

opinion on my part about what the facts are or about what your verdict should be. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 2 of 41 PageID #:3964
3 

 During this trial, I have asked a witness a question myself. Do not assume that because I 

asked questions I hold any opinion on the matters I asked about, or on what the outcome of the 

case should be. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 3 of 41 PageID #:3965
4 

 In this case Defendant Rosebud Farmstand is a corporation. All parties are equal before 

the law. A corporation is entitled to the same fair consideration that you would give any 

individual person. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 4 of 41 PageID #:3966
5 

 In determining the facts of this case, you must consider only the evidence that I have 

admitted in the case. The evidence consists of the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits 

admitted. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 5 of 41 PageID #:3967
6 

 Certain things are not to be considered as evidence. I will list them for you: 

 First, if I told you to disregard any testimony or exhibits or struck any testimony or 

exhibits from the record, such testimony or exhibits are not evidence and must not be considered. 

 Second, anything that you may have seen or heard outside the courtroom is not evidence 

and must be entirely disregarded. This includes any press, radio, Internet or television reports 

you have seen or heard. Such reports are not evidence and your verdict must not be influenced in 

any way by such publicity. 

 Third, questions and objections or comments by the lawyers are not evidence. Lawyers 

have a duty to object when they believe a question is improper. You should not be influenced by 

any objection, and you should not infer from my rulings that I have any view as to how you 

should decide the case. 

 Fourth, the lawyers’ opening statements and closing arguments to you are not evidence. 

Their purpose is to discuss the issues and the evidence. If the evidence as you remember it differs 

from what the lawyers said, your memory is what counts. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 6 of 41 PageID #:3968
7 

 Any notes you take during this trial are only aids to your memory. The notes are not 

evidence. If you do not take notes, you should rely on your independent recollection of the 

evidence and not be unduly influenced by the notes of other jurors. Notes are not entitled to any 

greater weight than the recollections or impressions of each juror about the testimony. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 7 of 41 PageID #:3969
8 

 In determining whether any fact has been proved, you should consider all of the evidence 

bearing on the question regardless of who introduced it. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 8 of 41 PageID #:3970
9 

 You should use common sense in weighing the evidence and consider the evidence in 

light of your own observations in life. 

 In our lives, we often look at one fact and conclude from it that another fact exists. In law 

we call this “inference.” A jury is allowed to make reasonable inferences. Any inference you 

make must be reasonable and must be based on evidence in the case. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 9 of 41 PageID #:3971
10 

 You may have heard the phrases “direct evidence” and “circumstantial evidence.” Direct 

evidence is proof that does not require an inference, such as the testimony of someone who 

claims to have personal knowledge of a fact. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a fact, or a 

series of facts, that tends to show that some other fact is true. 

 As an example, direct evidence that it is raining is testimony from a witness who says, “I 

was outside a minute ago and I saw it raining.” Circumstantial evidence that it is raining is the 

observation of someone entering a room carrying a wet umbrella. 

 The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or 

circumstantial evidence. You should decide how much weight to give to any evidence. In 

reaching your verdict, you should consider all the evidence in the case, including the 

circumstantial evidence. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 10 of 41 PageID #:3972
11 

 You must decide whether the testimony of each of the witnesses is truthful and accurate, 

in part, in whole, or not at all. You also must decide what weight, if any, you give to the 

testimony of each witness. 

 In evaluating the testimony of any witness, you may consider, among other things: 

 - the ability and opportunity the witness had to see, hear, or know the things 

 that the witness testified about; 

 - the witness’s memory; 

 - any interest, bias, or prejudice the witness may have; 

 - the witness’s intelligence 

 - the manner of the witness while testifying; 

 - and the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the 

 evidence in the case. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 11 of 41 PageID #:3973
12 

You may consider the statements given by any party or witness under oath before trial as 

evidence of the truth of what he or she said in the earlier statements, as well as in deciding what 

weight to give his or her testimony. 

 With respect to other witnesses, the law is different. If you decide that, before the trial, 

one of these witnesses made a statement not under oath or acted in a manner that is inconsistent 

with his or her testimony here in court, you may consider the earlier statement or conduct only in 

deciding whether his or her testimony here in court was true and what weight to give his or her 

testimony here in court. 

 In considering a prior inconsistent statement or conduct, you should consider whether it 

was simply an innocent error or an intentional falsehood and whether it concerns an important 

fact or an unimportant fact. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 12 of 41 PageID #:3974
13 

 It is proper for a lawyer to meet with any witness in preparation for trial. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 13 of 41 PageID #:3975
14 

 You may find the testimony of one witness or a few witnesses more persuasive than the 

testimony of a larger number. You need not accept the testimony of a larger number of 

witnesses. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 14 of 41 PageID #:3976
15 

 The law does not require any party to call as a witness every person who might have 

knowledge of the facts related to this trial. Similarly, the law does not require any party to 

present as exhibits all papers and things mentioned during this trial. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 15 of 41 PageID #:3977
16 

 You should consider only the evidence provided through the official interpreter. 

Although some of you may know Spanish, it is important that all jurors consider the same 

evidence. Therefore, you must base your decision on the evidence presented in the English 

translation. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 16 of 41 PageID #:3978
17 

 A mannequin has been shown to you. The mannequin was used for convenience and to 

help explain the facts of the case. It is not itself evidence or proof of any facts. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 17 of 41 PageID #:3979
18 

 You must give separate consideration to each claim and each party in this case. Although 

there are three Defendants, it does not follow that if one is liable, any of the others is also liable. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 18 of 41 PageID #:3980
19 

 A deposition is the sworn testimony of a witness taken before trial. The witness is placed 

under oath to tell the truth and lawyers for each party may ask questions. The questions and 

answers are recorded. 

 Excerpts from the deposition of Gary Holloway, which was taken on December 13, 2013, 

were presented to you. Deposition testimony is entitled to the same consideration and is to be 

judged, insofar as possible, in the same way as if the witness had been present to testify. 

 Do not place any significance on the behavior or tone of voice of any person who read 

the questions or answers. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 19 of 41 PageID #:3981
20 

 You have heard evidence that Plaintiff Robert Smith has been convicted of a crime. You 

may use that evidence only to help you decide whether to believe the witness and how much 

weight to give his testimony. 

 You have heard evidence that witness Gary Holloway has been convicted of a crime. You 

may use that evidence only to help you decide whether to believe the witness and how much 

weight to give his testimony. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 20 of 41 PageID #:3982
21 

 I have a duty to caution or warn an attorney who does something that I believe is not in 

keeping with the rules of evidence or procedure. You are not to draw any inference against the 

side whom I may caution or warn during the trial. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 21 of 41 PageID #:3983
22 

 In deciding Plaintiff Robert Smith’s claims against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, you 

should not concern yourselves with whether Defendant’s actions were wise, reasonable, or fair. 

Rather, your concern is only whether Plaintiff has proved that Defendant sexually harassed him 

because of his sex; racially harassed him because of his race; or retaliated against him for 

complaining about harassment and/or discrimination. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 22 of 41 PageID #:3984
23 

 Over the course of the trial, you have heard testimony regarding Plaintiff Robert Smith’s 

complaints to the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) and the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). You have not heard evidence regarding the determinations, 

if any, made by these bodies in relation to Plaintiff Robert Smith’s complaints. Their 

determinations are not relevant to this matter. 

 You must make a determination based on the evidence presented by the parties in this 

case, and in this case alone. 

 In addition, the claims in Plaintiff Robert Smith’s lawsuit are not limited to the precise 

facts set out in his complaints to the IDHR or EEOC. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 23 of 41 PageID #:3985
24 

 When I say a particular party must prove something by “a preponderance of the 

evidence,” or when I use the expression “if you find,” or “if you decide,” this is what I mean: 

When you have considered all the evidence in the case, you must be persuaded that it is more 

probably true than not true. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 24 of 41 PageID #:3986
25 

Plaintiff Robert Smith brings the following claims in this case: 

First, Plaintiff Robert Smith claims that Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, through its 

employees, violated federal law by sexually harassing him at work in violation of Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Second, Plaintiff Robert Smith claims that Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, through its 

employees, violated federal law by racially discriminating against him at work in violation of 

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. 

Third, Plaintiff Robert Smith claims that Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, through its 

employees, violated federal law by retaliating against him for filing a Complaint alleging that he 

had been sexually harassed and racially discriminated against at work, in violation of Title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. 

Fourth, Plaintiff Robert Smith claims that Defendant Carlos Castaneda and Defendant 

Roque Mendoza violated Illinois law under the Illinois Gender Violence Act by engaging in one 

or more acts of gender-related violence against Plaintiff Robert Smith. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 25 of 41 PageID #:3987
26 

 With respect to his Title VII claim for sexual harassment, Plaintiff Robert Smith claims 

that he was sexually harassed at work. Different standards for employer liability apply depending 

on whether the alleged harasser was the victim’s co-worker or supervisor. 

 To succeed on this claim based on the actions of Plaintiff’s co-worker, Plaintiff must 

prove seven things by a preponderance of the evidence: 

 1. Plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment; 

 2. The conduct was unwelcome; 

 3. The conduct occurred because of Plaintiff’s sex; 

 4. The conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person in 

Plaintiff’s position would find Plaintiff’s work environment to be hostile or abusive; 

 5. At the time the conduct occurred, Plaintiff believed that the conduct made his 

work environment hostile or abusive; 

 6. Defendant Rosebud Farmstand knew or should have known about the conduct; 

and 

 7. Defendant Rosebud Farmstand did not take reasonable steps to correct the 

situation or prevent harassment from recurring. 

 If you find that Plaintiff has proved by a preponderance of the evidence each of the things 

required of him, then you must find for Plaintiff. However, if Plaintiff did not prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence each of the things required of him, then you must find for 

Defendant Rosebud Farmstand. 

 To succeed on a claim against an employer based on the actions of a supervisor, Plaintiff 

must prove six things by a preponderance of the evidence: 

 1. The individual in question was Plaintiff’s supervisor. A supervisor is someone 

who can affect the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment. By this I mean someone who has the 

power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline Plaintiff. 

 2. Plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment; 

 3. The conduct was unwelcome; 

 4. The conduct occurred because of Plaintiff’s sex; 

 5. The conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person in 

Plaintiff’s position would find Plaintiff’s work environment to be hostile or abusive; and 

 6. At the time the conduct occurred, Plaintiff believed that the conduct made his 

work environment hostile or abusive. 

 If you find that Plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence each of the six 

things required of him, then you must find for Defendant Rosebud Farmstand. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 26 of 41 PageID #:3988
27 

 If, on the other hand, Plaintiff has proved each of these things, you must go on to 

consider whether Defendant Rosebud Farmstand has proved two things by a preponderance of 

the evidence: 

 1. Defendant Rosebud Farmstand exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct 

any harassing conduct in the workplace. 

 2. Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of opportunities provided by 

Defendant Rosebud Farmstand to prevent or correct harassment, or otherwise avoid harm. 

 If you find that Defendant Rosebud Farmstand has proved these two things by a 

preponderance of the evidence, your verdict should be for Defendant Rosebud Farmstand. If you 

find that Defendant Rosebud Farmstand has not proved both of these things, your verdict should 

be for Plaintiff. 

 In either scenario, to decide whether a reasonable person would find Plaintiff’s work 

environment hostile or abusive, you must look at all the circumstances. These circumstances may 

include the frequency of the conduct, its severity, its duration, whether it was physically 

threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff’s work 

performance. No single factor is required in order to find a work environment hostile or abusive. 

 Conduct that amounts only to ordinary socializing in the workplace, such as occasional 

horseplay, sexual flirtation, sporadic or occasional use of abusive language, gender related jokes, 

and occasional teasing, does not constitute an abusive or hostile environment. You should 

consider all the circumstances and the social context in which the conduct occurred. Only 

conduct amounting to a material change in the terms and conditions of employment amounts to 

an abusive or hostile environment. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 27 of 41 PageID #:3989
28 

 With respect to his Section 1981 claim for racial harassment, Plaintiff Robert Smith 

claims that he was racially harassed at work. Different standards for employer liability apply 

depending on whether the alleged harasser was the victim’s co-worker or supervisor. 

 To succeed on this claim based on the actions of Plaintiff’s co-worker, Plaintiff must 

prove seven things by a preponderance of the evidence: 

 1. Plaintiff was subjected to racial harassment; 

 2. The conduct was unwelcome; 

 3. The conduct occurred because of Plaintiff’s race; 

 4. The conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person in 

Plaintiff’s position would find Plaintiff’s work environment to be hostile or abusive; 

 5. At the time the conduct occurred, Plaintiff believed that the conduct made his 

work environment hostile or abusive; 

 6. Defendant Rosebud Farmstand knew or should have known about the conduct; 

and 

 7. Defendant Rosebud Farmstand did not take reasonable steps to correct the 

situation or prevent harassment from recurring. 

 If you find that Plaintiff has proved by a preponderance of the evidence each of the things 

required of him, then you must find for Plaintiff. However, if Plaintiff did not prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence each of the things required of him, then you must find for 

Defendant Rosebud Farmstand. 

 To succeed on a claim against an employer based on the actions of a supervisor, Plaintiff 

must prove six things by a preponderance of the evidence: 

 1. The individual in question was Plaintiff’s supervisor. A supervisor is someone 

who can affect the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment. By this I mean someone who has the 

power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline Plaintiff. 

 2. Plaintiff was subjected to racial harassment; 

 3. The conduct was unwelcome; 

 4. The conduct occurred because of Plaintiff’s race; 

 5. The conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person in 

Plaintiff’s position would find Plaintiff’s work environment to be hostile or abusive; and 

 6. At the time the conduct occurred, Plaintiff believed that the conduct made his 

work environment hostile or abusive. 

 If you find that Plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence each of the six 

things required of him, then you must find for Defendant Rosebud Farmstand. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 28 of 41 PageID #:3990
29 

 If, on the other hand, Plaintiff has proved each of these things, you must go on to 

consider whether Defendant Rosebud Farmstand has proved two things by a preponderance of 

the evidence: 

 1. Defendant Rosebud Farmstand exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct 

any harassing conduct in the workplace. 

 2. Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of opportunities provided by 

Defendant Rosebud Farmstand to prevent or correct harassment, or otherwise avoid harm. 

 If you find that Defendant Rosebud Farmstand has proved these two things by a 

preponderance of the evidence, your verdict should be for Defendant Rosebud Farmstand. If you 

find that Defendant Rosebud Farmstand has not proved both of these things, your verdict should 

be for Plaintiff. 

 In either scenario, to decide whether a reasonable person would find Plaintiff’s work 

environment hostile or abusive, you must look at all the circumstances. These circumstances may 

include the frequency of the conduct, its severity, its duration, whether it was physically 

threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff’s work 

performance. No single factor is required in order to find a work environment hostile or abusive. 

 Conduct that amounts only to ordinary socializing in the workplace, such as occasional 

horseplay, sexual flirtation, sporadic or occasional use of abusive language, gender related jokes, 

and occasional teasing, does not constitute an abusive or hostile environment. You should 

consider all the circumstances and the social context in which the conduct occurred. Only 

conduct amounting to a material change in the terms and conditions of employment amounts to 

an abusive or hostile environment. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 29 of 41 PageID #:3991
30 

 Regarding Plaintiff Robert Smith’s retaliation claim, Plaintiff claims that he was 

retaliated against by Defendant Rosebud Farmstand because Plaintiff complained about sexual 

harassment and race discrimination. To succeed on this claim, Plaintiff must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that Defendant retaliated against him because he filed a 

Complaint alleging sexual harassment and racial discrimination with the Illinois Department of 

Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on January 7, 2008. To 

determine that Plaintiff was retaliated against because he filed a Complaint, you must decide that 

Defendant would not have subjected Plaintiff to any materially adverse employment actions if 

Plaintiff had not filed his Complaint but everything else had been the same. 

 Plaintiff Robert Smith can establish that he was subjected to a materially adverse 

employment action by showing that Defendant engaged in any action that would dissuade a 

reasonable employee from making or supporting a claim of discrimination. 

 In addition, Plaintiff Robert Smith can establish that he was subjected to a materially 

adverse employment action by showing that Defendant “constructively discharged” him for 

filing his Complaint. To succeed on this method, Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of 

evidence that Defendant made Plaintiff’s working conditions so intolerable after he filed his 

Complaint that a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position would have had to quit. 

 If you find that Plaintiff Robert Smith has proved retaliation by a preponderance of the 

evidence, then you must find for Plaintiff. However, if you find that Plaintiff did not prove 

retaliation by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find for Defendant Rosebud 

Farmstand. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 30 of 41 PageID #:3992
31 

 Regarding Plaintiff Robert Smith’s Illinois Gender Violence Act claims against 

Defendant Carlos Castaneda and Defendant Roque Mendoza, Plaintiff Robert Smith claims that 

he was subjected to gender-related violence by each of Defendant Carlos Castaneda and 

Defendant Roque Mendoza. To succeed on this claim against either Defendant, Plaintiff must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant engaged in “gender-related 

violence,” which includes: 

 1. One or more acts of violence or physical aggression satisfying the elements of 

battery committed, at least in part, on the basis of Plaintiff Robert Smith’s sex, whether or not 

those acts have resulted in criminal charges, prosecution, or conviction; 

 2. A physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive 

conditions satisfying the elements of battery, whether or not the act or acts resulted in criminal 

charges, prosecution, or conviction; or 

 3. A threat of an act described in item (1) or (2) causing a realistic apprehension that 

the originator of the threat will commit the act. 

 A battery is committed by an individual if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or 

offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of 

such a contact, and (b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly 

results. 

 Liability only can be imposed against a person or persons who perpetrated gender-related 

violence. “Perpetrated” means either personally committing the gender-related violence or 

personally encouraging or assisting the act or acts of gender-related violence. 

 Liability cannot be imposed for any gender-related violence occurring prior to December 

23, 2004. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 31 of 41 PageID #:3993
32 

 If you find that Plaintiff Robert Smith has proved any of his claims against Defendant 

Rosebud Farmstand, Defendant Carlos Castaneda, or Defendant Roque Mendoza, then you must 

determine what amount of damages, if any, Plaintiff is entitled to recover. Plaintiff must prove 

his damages by a preponderance of the evidence. 

 If you find that Plaintiff Robert Smith has failed to prove any of his claims, then you will 

not consider the question of damages. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 32 of 41 PageID #:3994
33 

 You may award compensatory damages only for injuries that Plaintiff Robert Smith has 

proved by a preponderance of the evidence were caused by Defendants’ wrongful conduct. 

 Your award must be based on evidence and not speculation or guesswork. This does not 

mean, however, that compensatory damages are restricted to the actual loss of money; they 

include both the physical and mental aspects of injury, even if they are not easy to measure. 

 In calculating damages, you should not consider the issue of lost wages and benefits. The 

court will calculate and determine any damages for past or future lost wages and benefits. You 

should consider the following types of compensatory damages, and no others: 

 1. The physical and mental/emotional pain and suffering that Plaintiff Robert Smith 

has experienced. No evidence of the dollar value of physical or mental/emotional pain and 

suffering has been or needs to be introduced. There is no exact standard for setting the damages 

to be awarded on account of pain and suffering. You are to determine an amount that will fairly 

compensate Plaintiff Robert Smith for the injury he has sustained. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 33 of 41 PageID #:3995
34 

 If you find for Plaintiff Robert Smith, you may, but are not required to, assess punitive 

damages against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, Defendant Carlos Castaneda, and/or Defendant 

Roque Mendoza. The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a defendant for his conduct 

and to serve as an example or warning to the defendant and others not to engage in similar 

conduct in the future. 

 Plaintiff Robert Smith must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that punitive 

damages should be assessed against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, Defendant Carlos 

Castaneda, and/or Defendant Roque Mendoza. You may assess punitive damages only if you 

find that a Defendant’s conduct was in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. An action is in 

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights if taken with knowledge that it may violate the law. 

 Regarding Plaintiff Robert Smith’s claims against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, 

Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Rosebud Farmstand’s 

managerial employees acted within the scope of their employment and in reckless disregard of 

Plaintiff’s right not to be discriminated and/or retaliated against. In determining whether an 

employee was a managerial employee of Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, you should consider the 

kind of authority Defendant gave the employee, the amount of discretion he or she had in 

carrying out his or her job duties, and the manner in which he or she carried them out. You 

should not, however, award Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand if 

Defendant Rosebud Farmstand proves that it made a good faith effort to implement an antidiscrimination policy. 

 If you find that punitive damages are appropriate, then you must use sound reason in 

setting the amount of those damages. Punitive damages, if any, should be in an amount sufficient 

to fulfill the purposes that I have described to you, but should not reflect bias, prejudice, or 

sympathy toward either/any party. In determining the amount of any punitive damages, you 

should consider the following factors: 

 - the reprehensibility of Defendant’s conduct; 

 - the impact of Defendant’s conduct on Plaintiff; 

 - the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant; 

 - the likelihood that Defendant would repeat the conduct if an award of punitive 

 damages is not made; 

 - the relationship of any award of punitive damages to the amount of actual harm 

 Plaintiff suffered. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 34 of 41 PageID #:3996
35 

 Upon retiring to the jury room, you must select a presiding juror. The presiding juror will 

preside over your deliberations and will be your representative here in court. 

 A verdict form has been prepared for you. 

 Take this form to the jury room, and when you have reached a unanimous agreement on 

the verdict, your presiding juror will fill in and date the verdict form, and all of you will sign it. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 35 of 41 PageID #:3997
36 

 I do not anticipate that you will need to communicate with me. If you do need to 

communicate with me, the only proper way is in writing. The writing must be signed by the 

presiding juror, or, if he or she is unwilling to do so, by some other juror. The writing should be 

given to the marshal, who will give it to me. I will respond either in writing or by having you 

return to the courtroom so that I can respond orally. 

 If you send me a message, do not include the breakdown of any votes you may have 

conducted. In other words, do not tell me that you are split 4–4, or 6–2, or whatever your vote 

happens to be. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 36 of 41 PageID #:3998
37 

 The verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. Your verdict, whether 

for or against the parties, must be unanimous. 

 You should make every reasonable effort to reach a verdict. In doing so, you should 

consult with one another, express your own views, and listen to the opinions of your fellow 

jurors. Discuss your differences with an open mind. Do not hesitate to reexamine your own 

views and change your opinion if you come to believe it is wrong. But you should not surrender 

your honest beliefs about the weight or effect of evidence solely because of the opinions of other 

jurors or for the purpose of returning a unanimous verdict. 

 All of you should give fair and equal consideration to all the evidence and deliberate with 

the goal of reaching an agreement that is consistent with the individual judgment of each juror. 

You are impartial judges of the facts. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 37 of 41 PageID #:3999
38 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT SMITH, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Case No. 11-cv-9147 

 ) 

 v. ) Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. 

 ) 

ROSEBUD FARMSTAND, ROQUE ) 

MENDOZA, and CARLOS CASTANEDA, ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

VERDICT FORM 

 We, the jury, unanimously find as follows: 

SECTION I: LIABILITY 

Claim 1 (Sexual Harassment – Title VII): 

As to Claim 1 (Sexual Harassment – Title VII), against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, state 

your verdict by marking the appropriate line with an “X.” 

 For Plaintiff Robert Smith For Defendant Rosebud Farmstand 

 

Claim 2 (Racial Harassment – Section 1981): 

As to Claim 2 (Racial Harassment – Section 1981), against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, state 

your verdict by marking the appropriate line with an “X.” 

 For Plaintiff Robert Smith For Defendant Rosebud Farmstand 

 

Claim 3 (Retaliation): 

As to Claim 3 (Retaliation), against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, state your verdict by 

marking the appropriate line with an “X.” 

 For Plaintiff Robert Smith For Defendant Rosebud Farmstand 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 38 of 41 PageID #:4000
39 

Claim 4 (Illinois Gender Violence Act): 

As to Claim 4 (Illinois Gender Violence Act), against Defendants Carlos Castaneda and Roque 

Mendoza, state your verdict by marking the appropriate line with an “X.” 

As to Defendant Carlos Castaneda: 

 For Plaintiff Robert Smith For Defendant Carlos Castaneda 

 

As to Defendant Roque Mendoza: 

 For Plaintiff Robert Smith For Defendant Roque Mendoza 

 

SECTION II: DAMAGES 

PART A 

If you, the jury, find for Plaintiff Robert Smith and against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand on 

Plaintiff’s Claim 1 above, please answer the following question as you find appropriate under 

the facts and the law. 

We, the jury, find that the amount of compensatory damages, if any, to which Plaintiff Robert 

Smith has proved he is entitled to on his claim is: 

$____________________ 

If you, the jury, find for Plaintiff Robert Smith and against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand on 

Plaintiff’s Claim 2 above, please answer the following question as you find appropriate under 

the facts and the law. 

We, the jury, find that the amount of compensatory damages, if any, to which Plaintiff Robert 

Smith has proved he is entitled to on his claim is: 

$____________________ 

If you, the jury, find for Plaintiff Robert Smith and against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand on 

Plaintiff’s Claim 3 above, please answer the following question as you find appropriate under 

the facts and the law. 

We, the jury, find that the amount of compensatory damages, if any, to which Plaintiff Robert 

Smith has proved he is entitled to on his claim is: 

$____________________ 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 39 of 41 PageID #:4001
40 

If you, the jury, find for Plaintiff Robert Smith and against Defendant Carlos Castaneda on 

Claim 4 above, please answer the following question as you find appropriate under the facts and 

the law. 

We, the jury, find that the amount of compensatory damages, if any, to which Plaintiff Robert 

Smith has proved he is entitled to on his claim is: 

$____________________ 

If you, the jury, find for Plaintiff Robert Smith and against Defendant Roque Mendoza on 

Claim 4 above, please answer the following question as you find appropriate under the facts and 

the law. 

We, the jury, find that the amount of compensatory damages, if any, to which Plaintiff Robert 

Smith has proved he is entitled to on his claim is: 

$____________________ 

PART B 

If you, the jury, found for Plaintiff Robert Smith and against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand

on any of Plaintiff’s Claims 1 through 3 above, you may, but are not required to, award punitive 

damages against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand. 

If you, the jury, found for Plaintiff Robert Smith and against Defendant Carlos Castaneda on 

Claim 4 above, you may, but are not required to, award punitive damages against Defendant 

Carlos Castaneda. 

If you, the jury, found for Plaintiff Robert Smith and against Defendant Roque Mendoza on 

Claim 4 above, you may, but are not required to, award punitive damages against Defendant 

Roque Mendoza. 

If you choose to award Plaintiff Robert Smith punitive damages, then place an “X” on the YES 

line and fill in the amount of punitive damages that you find under the facts and the law that the 

Defendant should be assessed. If you choose not to award Plaintiff Robert Smith punitive 

damages, then place an “X” on the NO line. 

As to Defendant Rosebud Farmstand (Claim 1): 

 NO 

YES $____________________ 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 40 of 41 PageID #:4002
41 

As to Defendant Rosebud Farmstand (Claim 2): 

 NO 

YES $____________________ 

As to Defendant Rosebud Farmstand (Claim 3): 

 NO 

YES $____________________ 

As to Defendant Carlos Castaneda (Claim 4): 

 NO 

YES $____________________ 

As to Defendant Roque Mendoza (Claim 4): 

 NO 

YES $____________________ 

SECTION III: SIGNATURES 

Please sign and date below and return the entire Verdict Form to the Marshal (each juror must 

sign the form). 

 

Jury Foreperson 

 

 

DATE: 

Case: 1:11-cv-09147 Document #: 246 Filed: 12/15/15 Page 41 of 41 PageID #:4003