A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### S e p t e m b e r22,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT RO Y C . J OHNS ON, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. CI T Y OF T UL S A, OKL AHOMA, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 5122 ( D . C . N o . 0 2 - C V - 8 2 6 - M) (N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , AN DE RS ON , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

P lai n ti ff R o yJo h n so n ap p ea ls th e a d v erse jud g m en t of the d istri ct co u rt e n ter e d o n a ju ryv e rd ict in h is e m p lo ym e n t d isc rim in a tio n a n d c iv il righ ts l a ws u i t . Ex e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we a ffi r m.-2- I . P roce dural H i s t ory R oyJ ohns on i s an A fr i can- A m er i can w ho began w or ki ng as a pol i ce offi cer fort he Tul s a Pol i ce D epart m ent( T PD ) i n 1976. I n 1994, he fi l ed a c om pl ai nt a g a in s t th e C ity o f

T u ls a (C ity) a lle g in g ra c ia l d is c ri m in a tio n in e m p lo ym e n t. T hatact i on w as cert i fi ed as a cl as s act i on i n 1998. I n D ece m ber2001, t he di s t r i ct c o u rt sta y e d th e c a se to fa c ili tate se ttl e m e n t. In A p ril 2 0 0 2 a n d a g a in in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 , th e p a rt ie s file d p ro p o s e d c o n s e n t d e c re e s w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . T he di s t r i ctcour tul t i m at el yappr oved the s econd c ons entdecr ee, a dec i s i on that w e affi r m ed i n Johns on v. Lodge #93 of Fr at er nalO r derof

P ol i ce , 393 F. 3d 1096 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). O n F e b ru a ry2 2 , 2 0 0 2 , w h ile th e c las s a c tio n w a s s tayed , the C ity t erm i nat ed J ohns on’ s empl oym ent . J ohns on then fi l ed thi s l aw s ui t , al l egi ng that his dis charge w as becau se of h i s r ace an d in r et al i at i on for hi s r ole i n the cl ass a c tio n in v io latio n o f

4 2 U .S .C . § § 1 9 8 1 , 1 9 8 3 , an d 1 9 8 5 ; T itl e V II o f th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f

1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U .S .C . § § 2 0 0 0 e to 2 0 0 0 e -1 7 ; an d O k lah o m a law . H is th e o ryo f

th e c a se w a s th a t a c o n sp ira c ye x iste d a m o n g v a rio u s T P D p e rso n n e l to fa b ri c a te a re a s o n to d is c h a rg e h im b e c a u s e o f h is ro le in th e c la s s a c tio n la w s u it. T h e a lleg e d c o n sp ira c yin c lu d e d (1 ) im p o sin g re m e d ial m e a su re s re late d to h is D U I enfor cementact i vi t i es , ( 2) fabr i cat i ng document at i on s how i ng thathe fa i l ed to c o m p ly w ith th o s e m e a s u re s , a n d (3 ) s o lic itin g fa ls e c o m p la in ts a g a in s t h im .B e c a u se Jo h n so n d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th e ju ryfin d in g th a t ra c e w a s n o t a 1 m ot i vat i ng fac t or , w e w i l l focus onl yon hi s r et al i at i on cl ai m . T he bac kgr ound fa cts are re leva n t t o w h ethe r th ere w as su ffici en t evid en ce to su p p o rtthe C ity ’s m ix e d -m o tiv e d e fe n se ; th e re fo re , w e v iew th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e C ity a n d d ra w a ll r e a s o n a b le in fe re n c e s f ro m it in th e C ity’s fa v o r. See Webco Indus . , Inc. v. Ther m at oolC or p. , 2 7 8 F . 3 d 1 1 2 0 , 1 1 2 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). -3- T h e c a se w a s trie d to a ju ry . T h e ju ryfo u n d th a t, alth o u g h ra c e w a s n o t a m ot i vat i ng fac t or , t he C i t y ’ s di s char ge of J ohns on w as m ot i vat ed byr et al i at i on fo r h a v in g filed h is e a rlier law su it b u t th a t th e C ityw o u ld h a v e ter m in a ted h is empl oym enteven i n t he abs ence of the r et al i at or ym ot i ve. J ohns on fi l ed a po s t - t r i a l mot i on fo rj ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w ( J M O L) un de rFe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 0 (b), argu ing that there w as in su ffici en t evid en ce to su p p o rtthe C ity ’s “mi xed- m ot i ve” de fens e. T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed the R ul e 50( b) m ot i on. T he di s t r i ctcourtal s o deni ed J ohns on’ s m ot i on fora new tr i al i n w hi ch he a r gued that t he courti m pr oper l yi ns t ruct ed the j uryas t o the natur e of the empl oym ent r el at i ons hi p betw een the part i es . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. I I . Backg r ound 1 D ur i ng J ohns on’ s t w enty - fi ve y ear s of s ervi ce w i th the TP D , he r ece i ved ei ght een l et t er s of comm endat i on and w as gi ven aw ar ds i n 1995, 1999, and 2000 fo r arresti n g a h igh n u m b er o f d run k d ri v ers. I n O ctob er 2 0 0 0 , S erg ea n t K irk H ew i t tw r ot e an i nt ernal T PD m emora ndum i n w hi ch he e xpr es s ed conc ern about J ohns on’ s per form ance . H ew i t tw as notJ ohns on’ s s upervi s i ng s er geantbut w o rk e d a sh if

t th a t o v e rla p p e d w ith Jo h n so n ’s. A m o n g o th e r th in g s, H e w itt-4-

des cr i bed a numberof D W I orD U I arr es t s J ohns on had made i n w hi ch the s u s p e c t’ s b re a th te s t w a s b e lo w th e le g a l lim it fo r b lo o d a lc o h o l c o n te n t ( B A C ). J ohns on’ s s upervi s i ng s er geant , E d Pi er ce, w ho pr evi ous l yhad r equi r ed J ohns on to v id e o tap e a ll o f

h is tra ffic s to p s to a ss ist in re sp o n d in g to c iti z e n c o m p lain ts a b o u tJ o h n s o n , c o n d u c t e d a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f He wi t t ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s . He i ndepende nt l yexami ned s eventy - s i x of J ohns on’ s D U I arr es t s and found that tw e n ty -n in e o f

th e m , o r 3 6 % , res u lted in a b re a th tes t b e lo w th e leg a l li m it, a l t h o u g h ma n yo f

t h e s u s p e c t s wh o t e s t e d l o w we r e a rr e s t e d o n o th e rc h a r g e s . He found that , depart m ent - w i de, 211 outof 1, 639, or13% , of D U I arr es t ees t es t ed bel ow t he l egal l i m i t . H e al s o not ed thats ever al of J ohns on’ s l ow t es tr es ul t s had gener at ed w r i tt en and ve rbal compl ai nt s t o the TP D . A m ong otherthi ngs , Pi er ce r ecomm ended thatJ ohns on r evi ew the s t andar d fi el d s obr i etyt es t s ( SFS T s ) and provide m ore det ai l i n h i s arres treport s. A s a r es ul tof Pi er ce’ s r eport , J ohns on’ s s uper i oroffi cer s , M aj orSi dney M er chantand C apt ai n M ark M cC r ory , i m pl ement ed a va r i etyof r emedi al m eas ur es i n D ece m ber2000. T hos e meas ur es i ncl uded thatJ ohns on r ece i ve SFS T t r ai ni ng t o r efr es h t he tr ai ni ng he had r ece i ved i n 1994. T o thi s end, J ohns on t ook an SFST cl as s i n M ar ch 2001, and i n J ul y2001 he w entt o a m ul t i - daySFS T cour s e. T he r emedi al m eas ur es al s o r equi r ed J ohns on t o pr ovi de hi s s upervi s or s w i t h a mem o everyt i m e the r es ul tof a br eath t es the gave t o a su sp e c t w a s b e lo w th e leg a l li m it. S e v e n tee n su c h m e m o s w e re d isc u ss e d a t trial,T he othert w o SFS T s ar e know n as t he one- l egged s t and and the ni ne- s t ep 2 w a lk a n d tu rn . T h e H G N tes t re q u ire s th e su sp e c t to fo llo w a p e n o r o th e r o bjec t as it i s 3 m oved l at er al l yi n fr ontof the s us pect ’ s ey es . Per s ons undert he i nfl uence of a lco h o l o r so m e d e p re ss a n t d ru g s h a v e d ifficu ltyp u rsu in g th e p e n w ith o u t th e ir ey es j erki ng ( ny s t agmus) , w hi ch i s r efe rr ed t o as l ack of s m ooth pur s ui t . A l ack of s m oot h pur s ui tcan y i el d t w o of s i x pos s i bl e cl ues on the H G N t es t , one for eac h ey e. A per s on undert he i nfl uence al s o m ayexhi bi tny s t agmus w hen the pen i s m oved t o a fort y - fi ve degr ee a ngl e and w hen the ey es ar e hel d atm axi m um d e v iatio n , ea c h o f

w h ich c a n y ield tw o m o re c lu e s p e r e y e . T h e T P D in stru c ts its offi cers t o tes tfor al l si x clues. -5- m anyi ndi cat i ng t hat , pr i ort o arr es t i ng the s us pect , J ohns on had gi ven onl yone of t he S F S T s, t he h ori zon t al gaze n y st agm us (H G N ) t est , i nst ead o f al l three SF S T s. 2 O n M ay31, 2001, M er chanti m pos ed addi t i onal r emedi al m eas ur es on J ohns on: t hathe br i ng al l D U I t es ts ubj ect s t o the U ni form D i vi s i on Sout hw es ts t at i on for chemi cal t es t i ng, t hathe ac qui r e anotheroffi cert o conductt he t es t i ng, and thathe have a s upervi s orappr ove anyD U I arr es tpr i ort o tr ans por t i ng the s us pectt o t he d eten ti o n ce n ter. M eanw hi l e, on M ay5, 2001, J ohns on pul l ed overG r adyM apl es for s peedi ng and runni ng a r ed l i ght . A ppr oxi m at el ys i x m i nut es befor e, M apl es had l eftw or k ata l ocal hos pi t al w her e he ha d been a s s i s t i ng i n the oper at i ng r oom as a su rg ica l n u rse . A f

ter Jo h n so n o b se rv e d th a t M a p les w a s u n ste a d yo n h is fe e t, sli g h tl yslurred h is spe ec h , an d sw ea ted p rof u selyw h il e sit ti n g in Jo h n so n ’s ai r - condi t i oned patr ol car , J ohns on admi ni s t er ed the H G N t es tand obt ai ned a l ack o f sm o o th p u rsu it. H e th e n a rre ste d M a p les a n d to o k h im in fo r a b re a th tes t, 3-6-

w hi ch w as 0. 00% B A C . M apl es then agr eed t o a t ake bl ood t es t . T he bl ood w as dr aw n butJ ohns on neverr eques t ed a l ab t es tof the s ampl e. J ohns on booked M apl es i nt o j ai l on a cha r ge of D U I - drugs , gave hi m a tr aff i c ci t at i on, and r e l e a s e d h i m. T he nextday , M apl es ’ s i s t er - i n- l aw cal l ed the TP D t o compl ai n aboutthe arr es t . E ckertand M er chantvi s i t ed M apl es on tw o occa s i ons t o di s cus s the m at t er and p rovi de h i m w i t h a co m plai nt for m . M erchant r equ est ed thatM aples ’ bl ood s ampl e be t es t ed and, w hen the r es ul tcame back ne gat i ve, had the D U I- d ru g c h a rg e d is m is s e d . A l t hough M apl es di d notfi l e a for m al compl ai ntunt i l s om e t i m e i n J une, an i nt ernal affai r s ( I A ) i nves t i gat i on began on M ay22. A l s o on M ay22, J ohns on in iti a ted a n IA in v e stig a tio n in to a d iffe re n t m a tter. H e c laim e d th a t th e H e w itt m emo expr es s i ng conce r n aboutJ ohns on’ s per form ance had bee n l eake d and that loca l defen se a tt o rne y s u sed itto tryto d iscred ith is t esti m o n yd u ri n g a d ri v er’s l i cens e s us pens i on hear i ng befor e the D epart m entof Publ i c Safe ty( D PS hear i ng) and i n a courtpr ocee di ng. T h e tw o IA in v e stig a tio n s w e re c o n d u c ted b yS e rg e a n t T o d d E v a n s. H is r ol e w as t o fi nd fac t s , notr eac h concl us i ons . A s t o the M apl es arr es t , E vans found thatt he pr obabl e ca us e J ohns on document ed i n hi s arr es tr eportfor bel i evi ng M apl es t o be i nt oxi cat ed cons i s t ed of M apl es ’ uns t eadi nes s , bl oods hot e y e s, slu rre d sp e e c h , an d tw o o f th e six p o ss ib le c lu e s o n th e H G N tes t d u e to-7-

M apl es ’ l ack of

s m oot h pur s ui t . H ow ever , i n hi s l ow br eath t es tr es ul tm emo, J ohns on s t at ed he ha d obt ai ned fourof fourH G N cl ues , and he t ol d E vans dur i ng t he i nves t i gat i on t hathe had obt ai ned s i x of s i x H G N cl ues . W hen Evans poi nt ed o u t th is d isc re p a n c y , Jo h n so n m a in tain e d th a t h e n e v e r re c o rd s H G N re su lts in h is arr es tr epor t , pr efe r r i ng t o t es t i fyfr om m emorys o as nott o gi ve evi dence t o the defe ns e. E vans al s o found thatJ ohns on di d notcal l t o s ee i f a drug r ecogni t i on exp ertw as avai l able, w hich i s r equ i red byT P D po l i cypri or t o m aking an arr est for a charge o f D U I- drugs. B as ed on the conf

l i ct s among Johns on’ s arr es tr eport , hi s i nt er offi ce mem o, and hi s i nves t i gat i on t es t i m ony , as w el l as J ohns on’ s s t at ementaboutt es t i fy i ng fr om m emoryand w hatE vans des cr i bed as J ohns on’ s i nabi l i tyt o gi ve cl ear ans w er s and hi s t endenc yt o change hi s ans w er s t o the s ame ques t i ons overt i m e, E vans beca m e conc erned aboutJ ohns on’ s abi l i tyt o t es t i fyacc ur at el yi n hear i ngs on otherarr est s. A ft er further i nv est i gati on , E van s foun d, am on g o ther things, th a t Jo h n so n g a v e sw o rn tes tim o n yd u rin g a D P S h e a rin g o n M a y2 2 , 2 0 0 1 , in w hi ch he de s cr i bed a port i on of the H G N t es tas hol di ng a pen i n fr ontof the suspect ’s ey es t o see i f t he ey es bal anced ou t . W hen E van s asked h i m abo ut this , J ohns on r eport edl ys ai d he had no i dea w hathe meantbyhi s t es t i m onybutthat “[i ] tm aynothave be en i ncorr ect . ” A pl ee. Supp. A pp. at75. E vans t es t i fi ed that th e p ro c e d u re Jo h n so n d e sc rib e d is n o t p a rt o f a n yH G N tes t.-8-

A s t o J ohns on’ s compl ai ntaboutthe H ew i t tm emo, E vans found no evi dence t hati thad bee n l eake d. J ohns on had mai nt ai ned thatthe mem o w as us ed aga i ns thi m w hi l e he ga ve s w orn t es t i m onydur i ng a courthear i ng on M ay9, 2 0 0 1 . E v an s fo u n d that Jo h n so n w as a t th e c o u rth o u se o n that p arti cu lar da yfo r a h e a rin g o n w h e th e r d e fe n se c o u n se l w a s e n tit led to in ter n a l T P D d o c u m e n ts conce r ni ng J ohns on’ s D U I arr es t s . T he hea r i ng, how ever , w as r es chedul ed, and E vans found thatno hear i ng had eve roccurr ed i n thatcas e w her e s w or n t es t i m ony w as gi ven. W hen conf r ont ed w i th thi s i nform at i on, J ohns on r emai ned ada m ant th a t h is re c o lle c tio n w a s c o rr e c t. J o h n s o n a l s o m a i n t a i n e d t h a tth e H e w i t tm e m o w a s u s e d a g a i n s th i m b y a defe ns e att or neydur i ng t he M ay22 D PS hear i ng r efe rr ed t o above. J ohns on cl ai m ed he s aw the att or neyhol di ng a page of s t at i s t i cs fr om H ew i t t ’ s m emo t hat w as i n H ew i t t ’ s handw r i t i ng. W hen Evans t ol d J ohns on thathi s copyof the H ew i t tm emo cont ai ned no handw r i t t en page s , J ohns on pr ovi ded Evans w i th a copyof a ha ndw r i t t en page fr om Pi er ce’ s r eportand mai nt ai ned thati tw as the pag e he h ad seen i n the defen se at t orney ’s han d at the D P S heari ng . E van s, how ever , found evi dence s ugges t i ng thatthe defens e att orneyhad s ubm i t t ed, as exhi bi t s , copi es of publ i cl y - avai l abl e br eath- t es tl ogs and had c r eat ed a pa ge of hi s ow n handw r i t t en s t at i s t i cs der i ved fr om thos e l ogs . E vans al s o found thatt he s t at i s t i cs t he defens e att or neyr eci t ed dur i ng the D PS hear i ng w er e di ffe r entthan t hos e cont ai ned i n t he H ew i t tm emo and concerned a di ffe r entt i m e per i od.E ckertand M cC r or ym ade thei rr ecomm endat i ons t o M er chant , and 4 M er chantm ade hi s r ecomm endat i on t o D eputyPol i ce Chi ef Char l i e J acks on, w ho ap p are n tl yfo rw ard ed them to P o li ce C h ief R o n ald P alm er. -9- S erg ea n t E ck ert, C ap tai n M cC rory , an d M ajor M erc h an t r ev iew ed E v an s’s fi ndi ngs . E ach of

t hem re comm ended t erm i nat i on ora pr e- t erm i nat i on hear i ng b a se d o n Jo h n so n ’s fa ilu re to p ro p e rlyb u ild p ro b a b le c a u se fo r th e M a p les a rre st. 4 E c k e rt c a teg o riz e d Jo h n so n ’s fa ilu re to g iv e a ll th re e S F S T s a s “ d e lib e ra te i ndi ffe r ence t o pr i ort r ai ni ng. ” Id. at113. N ot i ng thi s fai l ur e as w el l as J ohns on’ s fai l ur e t o cal l fora drug r ecogni t i on expert , M cC r orys t at ed that J ohns on had “i gnor ed the tr ai ni ng, couns el i ng and r etr ai ni ng he r ece i ved conce r ni ng D U I det ect i on and arr es t s . ” Id. at 11 6 . M erc h an t fo u n d Jo h n so n ’s conduct“not abl e” be caus e the M apl es “arr es toccurr ed af t erO ffi cerJ ohns on had u n d e rg o n e a p p ro x im a telysix m o n th s o f sp e c ial a tten tio n d e sig n e d to a d d re ss th is s peci fi c ar ea. ” Id. at134. M cC r or yand M er chantal s o r ecomm ended f i ndi ng t hat J ohns on’ s des cr i pt i on of the H G N t es tdur i ng the M ay22 D PS hear i ng notbe s us t ai ned as an i ns t ance of fa l s e t es t i m ony , al though both thoughtt hi s w as fur t her evi dence of J ohns on’ s i ncompet ence . A s t o t he otheri nves t i gat i on, E ckert , M cC r ory , and M er chantdeemed J o h n s o n ’s a lle g a tio n th a t th e H e w itt m e m o h a d b e e n le a k e d to b e u n fo u n d e d . E ckertand M cC r or yr ecomm ended, t her efor e, s us t ai ni ng the cha r ges t hatJ ohns on h a d m a d e a fa lse re p o rt a n d h a d lied d u rin g E v a n s’s in v e stig a tio n o f h is c o m p lain t. M e rc h a n t, ho w e v e r, d isa g re e d , rea so n in g th a t Jo h n so n h a d m e re ly-10-

b e e n m is ta k e n th a t th e d e fe n s e a tto rn e y s w e re in p o s s e s s io n o f th e H e w itt m e m o . E ckertr ecomm ended a fi ft een- dayunpai d s us pens i on. I tdoes notappea rthat M cC r or yorM er chantgave a s peci fi c r ecomm endat i on on di s ci pl i ne or t erm i nat i on ar i s i ng fr om t hi s i nves t i gat i on. A ft err evi ew i ng t he r ecomm endat i ons and the I A fi l e and c onduct i ng a p re -te rm in a tio n h e a rin g , P o lice C h ief R o n a ld P a lm e r d isc h a rg e d Jo h n so n fo r h is con du cti n the M aples arr estand for m aking fals e or i naccu rat e st at em ents , s peci fi cal l y , hi s t es t i m onyaboutthe H G N t es tdur i ng the M ay22 D PS hear i ng, hi s compl ai ntt hatt he H ew i t tm emo had been l eake d, and hi s t es t i m onydur i ng t he i nves t i gat i on byE vans i nt o hi s I A compl ai nt . A s t o the M apl es arr es t , C hi ef Pal m erw r ot e: A f ter a d m in iste rin g a n in c o m p lete a n d n o n -sta n d a rd field so b rie ty te s t o n M r. M a p le s , y o u s u b s e q u e n tly a rr e s te d h im fo r D U I- A lc o h o l. A ft erM r . M apl es ’ br eath t es tr eturned a r es ul tof 0. 00% B A C , y ou fai l ed t o r eques ta ce r t i fi ed D rug R ecogni t i on E xpert , and further fou nd no evidence o f l egal ori l l egal drug s on o r about M r. M aples . Id. at141. I I I . D i s cus s i on W e p re fa c e o u r d isc u ss io n w ith a c lar ifica tio n o f th e iss u e s p re se n ted in t his app eal . T he m i xed -m oti ve d efen se appli es once a plai nti ff est abli shes a r et al i at or ym ot i ve foran empl oym entdeci s i on, and s hi ft s t he bur den t o the defe ndantt o pr ove by“a pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hati tw oul d have-11-

r eac hed the s ame deci s i on . . . even i n the abs ence of the pr ot ect ed conduc t . ” Mt. He a lthy C ity S c h . D ist. B d . o f E d u c . v. D oy le , 4 2 9 U .S . 2 7 4 , 2 8 7 (1 9 7 7 ). I n hi s openi ng br i ef on a ppeal , J ohns on fr ames hi s fi r s ti s s ue as w hether t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tgi vi ng a mi xed- m ot i ve i ns truct i on, i ncl udi ng w hethert he C i t yw ai ved the mi xed- m ot i ve defens e. H ow ever , he r epea t edl yr efe r s t o I ns t ruct i on N o. 3 as the i ns truct i on r el evantt o the m i xed -m oti ve d efen se. Instruct i on N o. 3 reads: E M P L O Y M E N T R E L A T IO N S H IP Y o u a re in stru c ted th a t an e m p lo y e r is e n tit led to us e i t s j udgm entas t o how t o run i t s bus i nes s and the l aw does notgener al l ycontr ol t he r eas ons orbas i s on w h ic h a n e m p lo y e r m a yd is c h a rg e o n e o f its e m p lo y e e s . T he empl oy erm ayl aw ful l ydi s char ge an e m pl oy ee for anyr eas on, good orbad, fai rorunfai r , r eas onabl e or unr eas onabl e unl es s t he di s char ge w as m ot i vat ed by unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on. Y ou ar e nott o “s econd gue s s ” the empl oy er s [s i c] deci s i on ors ubs t i tut e y ourj udgm entfort hatof the em ploy er outof sym pathyfor the P l ai nti ff o r because y ou t hi nk t he dec i s i on w as bad, unfai rorunr eas onabl e. A s a p p lica b le to th is c a se , all th e law re q u ire s is t hatt he empl oy ernott erm i nat e the empl oy ee be caus e of hi s r ace orbeca us e he f i l ed a l aw s ui tagai ns tt he em p loy er. A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I at121. A l t hough I ns truct i on N o. 3 pot ent i al l ybear s on the m ix e d -m o tiv e d e fe n s e , In s tru c tio n N o . 4 , title d “ D is c ri m in a tio n in E m p lo ym e n t,” seem s t o setforth the defen se squarel y . In r el evan tpart , t hat i nst ruct i on reads:-12- [I]f y o u fin d that D efen d an t’ s term ination o f P lai n ti ff ’s e m p lo ym e n t w a s a lso m o tiv a ted b yfa c to rs o th e r th a n h is r ace ort he fi l i ng of a l aw s ui tagai ns tD efe ndant , y ou m us tt hen dec i de w hetherPl ai nt i ff i s ent i t l ed t o m oney dam ages. P l ai nti ff i s ent i t l ed to m on eydam ages un l ess t he gr eat erw ei ghtof the evi dence demonstr at es thatthe D efe ndantw oul d have t erm i nat ed Pl ai nt i ff e ven i n the abs ence of cons i der at i on of hi s r ace orthe fi l i ng of a law su it ag a in st D e fe n d a n t. Id. a t 1 2 3 . A t tr ia l, J o h n s o n o bje c te d to In s tru c tio n N o . 3 b u t n o t to In s tru c tio n N o . 4 . See i d. , V ol . V I at774- 76, 778- 80. I n fac t , J ohns on’ s couns el ar gued i n favorof g iv in g a m ix e d -m o tiv e in s tru c tio n . See i d. at780 ( s t at i ng, i n r es pons e t o the C ity ’s co n tention that a p retex t i n stru cti o n w as p rop er instea d , “tha t th e jury ea sil yco u ld find that there w ere m ixed m o ti v es” an d that “I’m n o t r ea ll ysu re how [the C i t y ] cl ai m [s ] att hi s poi ntthatther e’ s no r oom i n thi s cas e fora fi ndi ng of m i xed mot i ves ”) . I n hi s pos t - tr i al m ot i ons , J ohns on di d notar gue thati tw as i m pr opert o gi ve I ns t ruct i on N o. 4. I ns t ead, he ar gued thatthe mi xed- m ot i ve defe ns e w as nots uppor t ed byt he evi dence and thatI ns truct i on N o. 3 w as i m pr oper l ygi ven bec aus e i tfai l ed t o acc ountfora col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng a g re e m e n t ( C B A ) t h a t g o v e rn e d th e p a rt ie s ’ e m p lo ym e n t r e la tio n s h ip . T hi s confus i on has obs cur ed the cont our s of the i s s ues on appea l . I n vi ew of the for egoi ng, w e cons t rue the i s s ues as fol l ow s : ( 1) w hetherthe C i tyw ai ved it s m ixed -m o ti v e d efen se; (2) w h ethe r Joh n so n is en ti tl ed to JM O L b ec au se th ere w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tthe j ur yfi ndi ng thatthe C i tyw oul d haveJohn son als o co ntends that the C i tyw ai ved t he m i xed -m oti ve d efen se 5 b e c a u se it d id n o t re q u e st In stru c tio n N o . 3 . T h e C ity ’s a c tio n s w ith re g a rd to I ns t ruct i on N o. 3 ar e notgerm ane t o the w ai veri s s ue bec aus e thati ns truct i on does nots etfor t h t he defens e. -13- di s char ged hi m even i n t he abs ence of a r et al i at or ym ot i ve; and ( 3) w hether J ohns on i s ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al beca us e I ns truct i on N o. 3 fai l ed t o acc ountfor t h e e x i s t e n c e o f

t h e CB A. A . W aiver of t h e m i x ed -m oti ve d efense Jo h n so n a rg u e s th a t th e C ityw a iv e d th e m ix e d -m o tiv e d e fe n se b e c a u se it w as n o t affirm ati v elyp rese n ted in the p retri al ord er, no w itn esse s w ere des i gnat ed t o t es t i fyabouti t , and the C i tyoffe r ed no evi dence t o s uppor ti t . T he 5 C ityresp o n d s tha t Joh n so n d id n o t r aise this w aive r arg u m en t i n the d istri ct co u rt a n d is th e re fo re b a rr e d f ro m ra is in g it o n a p p e a l. W e a g re e w ith th e C ity. W e r evi ew i s s ues r ai s ed fort he fi r s tt i m e on appe al onl y“i n the mostunus ual ci r cumst ance s , ” s uch as “w her e mani fes ti nj us t i ce w oul d r es ul t . ” Sm i th v. R og ers G alvaniz i ng C o. , 1 2 8 F .3 d 1 3 8 0 , 1 3 8 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). N o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d s h o w s t h a tJ o h n s o n r a i s e d w a i v e ri n t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t . We s ee no mani fes ti nj us t i ce i n decl i ni ng t o r evi ew t he i s s ue bec aus e, as not ed above , J ohns on’ s couns el ar gued i n s uppor tof an i ns truct i on on the mi xed- m ot i ve defe ns e and, as di s cus s ed bel ow , s uffi ci entevi dence s uppor t ed the defens e.-14-

B . Suffi ci ency of t he evi dence J ohns on nextar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on for J M O L beca us e ther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tt he mi xed- m ot i ve defe ns e. W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s r efus al t o gr antJ M O L de novo, appl y i ng th e s a m e s ta n d a rd a s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . Mas on v. O kla. Tpk. A uth. , 115 F. 3d 1442, 14 50 (10t h C i r. 19 97 ). U nd er that s t and ard, “w e view t he record i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o ra b le to th e p re v a ili n g p a rtya n d g iv e th a t p a rtyth e b e n e fit o f a ll rea so n a b le i nfer ence s t o be dr aw n fr om t he evi dence . ” Webco Indus . , Inc. , 2 7 8 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 3 . “[J ] udgm entas a mat t erof l aw i s w arr ant ed onl yi f the evi dence poi nt s butone w ayand i s s us cept i bl e t o no r eas onabl e i nfer ence s s uppor t i ng the partyoppos i ng t he mot i on. ” Mas on , 1 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 4 5 0 . It is w e ll e s ta b lis h e d th a t “ [ t] h e ju ry . . . has t he exc l us i ve func t i on of appr ai s i ng cr edi bi l i ty , det erm i ni ng the w ei ghtt o be gi ven t o t he t es t i m ony , dr aw i ng i nfer ence s fr om t he fa ct s es t abl i s hed, r es ol vi ng confl i ct s i n t he evi dence , and r eac hi ng ul t i m at e conc l us i ons of fa ct . ” Thunder B as i n C oalC o. v. Sw . P ub. Ser v. C o. , 104 F. 3d 1205, 1212 ( 10th C i r . 1997) (qu o tat ion s o m itted). T o pr evai l i n a mi xed- m ot i ve ca s e, an empl oy erdoes notneed t o pr ovi de di r ectevi dence t hati tw oul d have made the s ame deci s i on even i n the abs ence of a n im p ro p e r m o tiv e . See Fosterv. Uni v. of A rk. , 9 3 8 F . 2 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 4 (8th C ir . 19 91 ). R at her, an em ploy er m aysat i sfyi t s burden on t he m i xed -m oti ve d efen se b yp re se n tin g su fficie n t o bjec tiv e e v id e n c e f ro m w h ich th e ju ryc o u ld re a so n a b ly-15-

c o n c lu d e th a t th e e m p lo y e e ’s jo b p e rfo rm a n c e w a s s o u n sa tisfa c to ryth a t h e w o u ld h a v e b e e n d is c h a rg e d e v e n in th e a b s e n c e o f a n im p ro p e r m o tiv e . See i d. T h e C ityp re se n ted e v id e n c e th a t itfo u n d Jo h n so n ’s p e rfo rm a n c e in connec t i on w i t h t he M apl es arr es tt o be uns at i s fac t or yand ci t ed w hati s s aw as J ohns on’ s i ncompet ence as a r eas on fort erm i nat i ng hi s empl oym ent . A l though J ohns on pr es ent ed s om e evi dence thatthe M apl es arr es tw as s uppor t ed by p ro b a b le c a u se , h e a d m its th a t th e re w a s c o n tra rye v id e n c e o n th is p o in t, A p lt. O peni ng B r . at24. W e do notw ei gh the evi dence oreval uat e the cr edi bi l i tyof th e w itn e s s e s . Mas on , 1 1 5 F . 3 d a t1 4 5 0 . Af t e rc a r e f u l r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d , we concl ude thatt her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch the j ur ycoul d fi nd that Jo h n so n ’s p e rfo rm a n c e in th e M a p les a rre st, v iew e d in c o n tex t o f th e sp e c ific c o u n se lin g a n d tra in in g th e C ityh a d p ro v id e d to Jo h n so n , w a s s u fficie n tly uns at i s fac t or yt hatt he C i t yw oul d have t erm i nat ed hi s empl oym enteven i n the abs ence of a r et al i at or ym ot i ve. Jo h n so n ’s s p e c ific a rg u m e n ts to th e c o n tra rylac k m e rit. F irst, h e a ss e rts t hati ti s undi s put ed thatno T PD offi cerhad eve rbeen t erm i nat ed for i ncompet ence orfora bad D U I arr es t . E ven i f true, thi s bal d fac tdoes not n e c e s s ita te a fin d in g th a t th e C ity’s re a s o n s in th is c a s e w e re n o t m ix e d . J ohns on’ s ent i r e cha i n of comm and emphas i zed thatJ ohns on had r ece i ved ad d it ion al S F S T tr ainin g sh o rt lyb efo re the M ap les arrest an d fa il ed to p erfo rmA ppar ent l y , t hi s ar gum entconce rns J ohns on’ s D U I arr es t s i n 2001, as 6 P ier c e ’s N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 re p o rt sh o w e d h is p e rc e n tag e o f lo w b re a th tes t re su lts w as hi ghert han the depa r t m entaver age. -16- a p p ro p ria te S F S T s o n M a p les . T h u s, th is c a se in v o lv e d m o re th a n sim p le in c o m p e ten c e o r a sin g le b a d D U I a rre st. S e c o n d , J o h n s o n a r g u e s t h a tth e p e r c e n t a g e o f s u s p e c t s h e a rr e s t e d fo rDUI t hat t es t ed bel ow t he l egal l i m i t w as l es s than the depart m ent - w i de aver age. T he 6 im p lica tio n w e o ste n sib lya re to d ra w is th a t th is s tatistic m e a n s th e C itysh o u ld nothave t erm i nat ed hi s empl oym ent . H ow ever , i tw as notJ ohns on’ s per cent age of l ow br eath t es t s t hatm ot i vat ed hi s di s char ge, butr atherhi s per form ance i n t he M apl es arr es tvi ew ed i n t he cont extof the s peci fi c couns el i ng and tr ai ni ng he had r ece i ved. T hus , t he j ur yw as fr ee t o r eac h i t s concl us i on des pi t e anys t at i s t i cal compar i s on favor abl e t o J ohns on thatt he evi dence m ayhave s uppor t ed. T hi r d, J ohns on poi nt s t o t es t i m onyconce rni ng a compar i s on cas e i n w hi ch ot heroffi cer s beatand fa l s el yarr es t ed a s us pectout s i de of thei rj ur i s di ct i on and lied to IA in v e stig a to rs to c o n c e a l th e ir c o n d u c t. Jo h n so n c o n ten d s th a t th is c o n d u c t w a s w o rse th a n h is a rre st o f M a p les y e t th o se o ffice rs w e re o n ly d is c ip lin e d , n o t d is c h a rg e d , s u g g e s tin g th a t h is o w n d is c h a rg e w a s fa b ri c a te d . H ow ever , t her e w as no evi dence t hatt hos e off i cer s had a hi s t oryof poor per form ance i n an ar ea i n w hi ch theyhad j us tr ece i ved s peci fi c couns el i ng and t r ai ni ng, w hi ch w as t he bas i s forC hi ef Pal m er ’ s opi ni on thatt he othercas e w as l es s s er i ous t han J ohns on’ s . A l t hough M er chantt es t i fi ed thatt he compar i s onJo h n so n a rg u e s fo r th e first tim e in h is re p lyb rie f, an d w ith o u t cita tio n to 7 anyl egal author i t y , t hatt he mi xed- m ot i ve defens e fa i l s beca us e the C i tydi d not avai l i t s el f of a nyof a numberof es t abl i s hed met hods of ca rry i ng i t s bur den of proof. W e decli ne to con si der non -j uri sdi ct i on al argum ents rai sed fo r the fir st tim e in a re p ly b ri e f, Sa d eg h i v . I NS , 40 F. 3d 1139, 1143 ( 10th C i r . 1994) , or a rg u m e n ts n o t s u p p o rt e d b ya n yle g a l a u th o ri ty, s ee Phi l l i ps v. C alhoun , 956 F. 2d 9 4 9 , 9 5 3 -54 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). -17- cas e w as w or s e and w arr ant ed di s char ge, thatopi ni on does notunderm i ne the fa ct t hatM er chantal s o r ecomm ended t erm i nat i on bas ed on J ohns on’ s arr es tof M apl es . T hatt he C i t ydi d notdi s char ge the otheroffi cer s , ther efor e, i s an insu ffici en t bas is fo r JM O L in Jo h n so n ’s fa v o r. J ohns on offe r s no ar gum entconce rni ng the othernon- r et al i at orybas i s for d i s c h a r g e p r o ffe r e d b y t h e C i t y, n a m e l y, h i s fa l s e o ri n c o rr e c tt e s t i m o n y. A c c o rd in g ly , w e n e e d n o t ad d re ss it. 7 T o t he ext entJ ohns on’ s chal l enge t o the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence i m pl i cat es I ns truct i on N o. 4, t he mi xed- m ot i ve i ns truct i on, ourr evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o pl ai n err orr evi ew beca us e he di d notobj ectt o thati ns truct i on i n the di s tr i ct c o u rt , s ee Fed. R . C i v. P. 51( d) ( 2) . A s s uffi ci entevi dence s uppor t ed the defens e, w e se e n o p lai n erro r. I n s um , w e conc l ude thats uffi ci entevi dence s uppor t ed the j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng that the C ityw o u ld h av e d isch arg ed Jo h n so n ev en in the ab sen ce o f a retali atory m ot i ve. A s di s cus s ed bel ow , t he fa ctt hatt her e w as no evi dence of ori ns truct i on r egar di ng t he C B A di d noti m perm i s s i bl yaffectt hatfi ndi ng.-18-

C . I n s tr u c ti o n N o . 3 W e n o w turn to Jo h n so n ’s fina l i ssu e. H e a rgu es th at th e d istri ct co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h im a n e w trial b e c a u se In stru c tio n N o . 3 w a s m a ter ially m i s l eadi ng t o t he ext enti t“i nvi t ed the j ur yt o fi nd that[the C i ty ] coul d have t erm i nat ed [hi m ] forno r eas on atal l ” r athert han “w hether[the C i ty ] t rul yhad good caus e, ” os t ens i bl yundert he C B A . A pl t . O peni ng B r . at28. W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o gi ve a pa r t i cul ari ns truct i on forabus e of di s cr et i on. T o det erm i ne w hethert he j uryw as adequa t el yi ns t ruct ed on the appl i cabl e l aw , w e r evi ew t he instruction s in the iren ti retyd e n o v o to d eterm ine w h ethe r th e jury w as m i s l ed i n anyw ay . T he i ns truct i ons as a w hol e nee d notbe fl aw l ess, bu tw e m ustbe sat i sfi ed that , up on heari ng t he instruct i on s, t he j ur yunder s t ood t he i s s ues t o be r es ol ved and i t s dutyt o r es ol ve t h e m. Medl ock v . O r tho B i ot ech, Inc. , 164 F. 3d 545, 552 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( ci t at i ons o m itte d ). A s a n in iti a l m a tter, w e d isa g re e th a t In stru c tio n N o . 3 p e rm itt e d th e ju ryto fi nd t hatt he C i t ycoul d have t erm i nat ed J ohns on’ s empl oym entforno r eas on at al l . I ns t ruct i on N o. 3 pr ovi des t hatan “e m pl oy erm ayl aw ful l ydi s char ge an empl oy ee forany r eas on , g o o d o r b a d , fa ir o r u n fa ir, rea so n a b le o r u n re a so n a b le u n le s s th e d is c h a rg e w a s m o tiv a te d b yu n la w f u l d is c ri m in a tio n .” A p lt. A p p ., V ol . I at121 ( emphasi s added) . T he i ns truct i on i nform ed the j ur yt hati tw as not to “s ec o n d g u ess” the C ity ’s de cisi o n o r sub sti tute it s jud g m en t fo r th e C ity ’s b e c a u s e it fe lt th a t th e d e c is io n w a s b a d , u n fa ir , o r u n re a s o n a b le . Id. T hatA pr et exti ns t ruct i on i n a mi xed- m ot i ve ca s e appe ar s pr operbeca us e the 8 i s s ue of mi xed mot i ves “‘ does notar i s e fort he tr i erof fa ctunt i l t he pl ai nt i ff ha s carr i ed the bu rden of

persuading t he tr i er that the fo rbi dd en an i m us w as a m ot i vat i ng fac t ori n t he empl oym entdeci s i on buthas fai l ed t o per s uade the tr i er t hatnon- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas ons pr offe r ed byt he empl oy erw er e pr et ext s and not al s o m ot i vat i ng fac t or s . ’ ” Thom as v. D enny’s , Inc. , 111 F. 3d 1506, 1512 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng O strow skiv. A t l . Mut. Ins. C os. , 968 F. 2d 171, 181 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 )) . -19- in stru c tio n , tak e n to g e th e r w ith In stru c tio n N o . 6 , w h ich a d v ise d th e ju ryto e v a lu a te th e c re d ib ility o f th e C ity’s e x p la n a tio n , s ee i d. a t 1 2 5 , p ro p e rly i nform ed the j ur yt hatpartof i t s t as k w as t o det erm i ne i f the C i tyes t abl i s hed a non- r et al i at or y r eas on t hat w as not pr et extual . T hus , J ohns on’ s s ugges t i on that 8 th e ju ryc o u ld h a v e fo u n d in th e C ity ’s fa v o r if it d e ter m in e d th a t th e C ity d is c h a rg e d h im fo r a re a s o n “ a s tr iv ia l a s [ its ] d is lik e o f th e c o lo r o f

[ h is ] e y e s ,” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at28 n. 10, has no per s uas i ve val ue i n oureval uat i on of the pr opr i etyof I ns t ruct i on N o. 3. W e ar e l i kew i s e unper s uaded byhi s s ugges t i on t hat“[t ] he i ns t ruct i ons m i ghtas w el l have a dvi s ed the j ur yt hat. . . r et al i at i on w as a val i d r eas on fort he t erm i nat i on, ” A pl t . R epl yB r . at13. J ohns on has notdi r ect ed us t o anycas e l aw , and w e have found none, su p p o rtin g th e p ro p o sitio n s im p licit in h is b rie fs: th a t th e C B A w a s m a ter ial to th e m ix e d -m o tiv e d e fe n se o r th a t an e m p lo y e r h a s th e b u rd e n to sh o w th a t it di s char ged an e m pl oy ee a ccor di ng t o the j us t - caus e r equi r ement s of a c ontr actor C B A i n or dert o avai l i t s el f of the mi xed- m ot i ve defens e. N one of the ca s es John son cit es i n sup po rtof h i s ar gu m ent concerns w hethercon tractual j ust -causeSee A pl t . O peni ng B r . at27- 28 ci t i ng A l exande rv. NextelC om m c’ ns , Inc. , 9 6 1 C a l. R p tr. 2 d 2 9 3 (C t. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ); Haycoc k v. Hughes A i r cr af tC o. , 2 8 C a l. R p tr. 2 d 2 4 8 (C t. A p p . 1 9 9 4 ); L i n e b e rg e rv . Wi l l i a ms , 3 9 3 S .E .2 d 2 3 (G a . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 0 ); B arks v. C os gr i f f C o. , 5 2 9 N . W . 2 d 7 4 9 (N eb . 1 9 9 5 ); Mur phy v. P ubl i cke rIndus . , Inc. , 516 A . 2d 47 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1986) ; and Si ekawi t ch v. Was h. B eef

P r oducers , Inc. , 7 9 3 P . 2 d 9 9 4 (W ash . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). -20- pr ovi s i ons ar e r el evantt o r et al i at i on ordi s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s ; i ndeed, thos e ca s es di d noti nvol ve r et al i at i on ordi s cr i m i nat i on atal l , butr athera var i etyof s t at e- l aw breach of con t ract , w rongf ul t erm i nati on , and con struct i ve dis charge cl ai m s. 9 W e ar e per s uaded i ns t ead bya ca s e fr om t he Seventh C i r cui ti nvol vi ng a claim u n d er the A g e D iscri m ination in E m p loym en t A ct (A D E A ): W hethera gi ven empl oy ee s erves atw i l l , orfora t erm of y ear s , or u n d er a co n tr ac t r eq u ir ing “g o o d ca u se” fo r disch arg e, i s n eith er h ere nort her e; vi ol at i on of a “ caus e” r equi r ementi n a contr actof e mp l o yme n td o e s n o tma k e a d i s c h a r g e u n l a wf u l u n d e rt h e ADE A. C ont r actual t erm s coul d be pert i nentt o a s t at e- l aw cl ai m of w r ongful t erm i nat i on j oi ned w i t h t he fe der al cl ai m , butA chordi d notm ake s u c h a c l a i m. A chorv. R i vers i de G ol f C l ub , 1 1 7 F . 3 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 1 - 4 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) . Al th o u g h we c o n c lu d e th a t, i n a re talia tio n c a se , the e x iste n c e o f a “ju st c a u se ” re q u ire m e n t in a contr actdoes notnece s s ar i l yr equi r e a j ur yi ns truct i on des cr i bi ng the natur e of t he empl oym entr el at i ons hi p, a j us tcaus e vi ol at i on coul d cas tdoubton the cre d ibil ityo f a n em p loy er’s p roffe red rea so n s fo r disch arg ing an em p loy ee . If Jo h n so n w a n ted to q u e stio n th e c re d ib ili tyo f th e C ity ’s p ro ffe re d re a so n s in th is m anner , he s houl d have a dduced s om e evi dence t hatt hos e r eas ons r an afoul of the C B A . E v e n th o u g h th e p a rties stip u late d in th e p re trial o rd e r th a t th e ir-21-

empl oym entr el at i ons hi p w as governed bya C B A , J ohns on pr es ent ed no evi dence of how t he “j us tcaus e” pr ovi s i on of the C B A appl i ed t o hi s cl ai m . Fur therm or e, J ohns on has notexpl ai ned on appe al how the non- r et al i at or yr eas ons gi ven byt he C i t yvi ol at ed the C B A . T hus , even i f the C B A w as r el evant , a pos i t i on w e r ej ect on t he evi dence pr es ent ed i n t hi s cas e, J ohns on has nots how n pr ej udi ce f r om t he fai l ur e of the di s t r i ctcour tt o i ncl ude i n a j ur yi ns truct i on w hat ever“j us tcaus e” mi g h te x i s ti n t h e CB A. J ohns on’ s obs ervat i on t hatthe C i tydi d notr eques torar gue i n favorof In stru c tio n N o . 3 h a s littl e re lev a n c e to th is iss u e . A d istric t co u rt h a s a d u tyto in s tru c t th e ju ry a s to th e a p p lic a b le la w b a s e d o n th e p le a d in g s a n d th e e v id e n c e . See Radi o C or

p. of A m . v. R adi o Stat i on K Y F M, Inc. , 4 2 4 F . 2 d 1 4 , 1 9 (10 th C ir . 1970) . I ns t ruct i on N o. 3 w as nece s s aryi n or dert o expl ai n t o the j urythatany err ororm i s t ake of

j udgm entt he C i tym i ghthave made i n deci di ng t o di s char ge J ohns on w as nott o be a fact ort hats w ay ed the j ury ’ s fi ndi ng on t he mi xed- m ot i ve defe ns e. B eca us e no evi dence of the C B A w as pr es ent ed, the di s tr i ctcourthad no o b lig a tio n to in c lu d e a n yh e ig h te n e d “ju s t c a u s e ” re q u ir e m e n ts in its in s tru c tio n s . E v e n if Jo h n so n h a d p ro p o se d h is o w n ju ryin stru c tio n , w h ich a p p e a rs u n lik e ly beca us e he ha s noti ncl uded hi s pr opos ed j ur yi ns truct i ons i n hi s appendi x, the di s t r i ctcourtl i kel yw oul d have r ej ect ed i tdue t o the l ack of anys uppor t i ng e v id e n c e . See i d.-22-

B a se d o n th e fo re g o in g , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n gi vi ng I ns t ruct i on N o. 3. V . C oncl usi on T he judgm ent of t he d i stri ctcou rti s AFF I RM ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge