FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 4, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR T HE ELE VENTH C IRC UIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. 0 9-1637 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Doc ke t No . 07-01 524-C V-T-30TB M DIANE T. GOW SKI, M.D. , SALLY B . ZAC HARIAH, M .D., Pla int iffs-Appe lle es Cros s-Appe lla

nts , ve rsus JAM ES PEAKE, M .D., Se cre ta ry , De pa rtm ent of Ve te rans Affai rs, e t a l., De fend ants, ERIC K. SHINSEKI, De fend ant-Appe llantCros s-Appe lle e.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe al s from

the Uni te d Sta

te s Di stri ct

Co urt for the Mi ddl e Dist

ric t of Fl orida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 4, 2 012)Be fore E DMON DSON, KR AVITC H a

nd FAR RIS, Ci rcui t Ju dge s. * PER C URIAM : This a ppe aland c ross-a

ppe alarise from

a jury ve rdic t a nd a ward of da

m ag es an d in jun ct ive rel ie f in fa

vor of Do ct ors Di an e Gowski a nd Sa lly Za ch ari ah

in the ir dis cri minatio n, re ta lia

tio n, a nd h ost ilework e nvi ronm ent su it ag ai nst the Sec ret ary of theDe pa

rtm ent of Ve te rans Affai rs (VA). W e m ust de ci de whe the r thi s c irc uit 1
rec ogni ze s a

ret al iatory

hos til e work e nvi ronm ent c la im a nd, i f so, whe the r the
ev ide nc e in t

his c as e wa s su ffici ent t o su pport the jury ’s ve rdic t a

nd d am ag es aw ard. W e co nc lud e that a ret al iatory

hos til e work e nvi ronm ent i s a via ble c la im
an d, a fte r a t

horough re vie w of th e rec ord a nd wi th t he be ne fit o f oralargum ent,
we a ffirm in pa rt a nd v ac at e an d re m an d in

pa rt. I. Ba ck ground This c as e inv olv ed

a two -wee k ju

ry tria l, fou r pla int iffs, fou

r hosp ita l ad m ini stra tors an d depa

rtm ent he ad s, nu

m erou s wi tne sse s, a

nd e xte nsi ve doc um enta

ry e vid en ce . W e be gin

by ide nti fy ingthe pla int iffs, t he ir c la im s, a

nd the rel ev ant m em

be rs of th e VA’ s a dm ini stra tio n. Do ct ors Go wskiand Za ch ari ah

Honora ble J eromeFa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * designation. The jury reje cted Gow ski’s relig ious discrimination claim and Z acha riah’s g ender 1 discrimination claims. Gowski and Z acha riah do not appe al from the jur y verdic t on these claims. 2we re e m

plo y ed at t he Ba y Pine s VA h ospi ta l a

nd m ed ic alc ente r in Fl orida
. Gowski wa s a

hos pit al ist

who be ga

n worki ng for t

he VA i n 19 97. In 200 5, sh e wa s a ssi gne d to the m ed ic alint en siv e ca re u nit (MIC U). Za ch ari ah

be ga n worki ng for Ba y Pine s in 198 9 a s a ne urolo gis t a

nd re se arc he r an d is a

n a sso ci at e profes sor of ne urolo gy

at t he Uni ve rsit

y of Sout h Flori da
. At t he rel ev ant t im es , Dr. Sha rac ha ndra Pat elwa s th e ch ie f hosp ita lis t a nd Gowski’ s im

m ediate sup ervi sor. D r. Lit hium Lin wa s th e ch ie f of m ed ic ine
se rvic es . Dr. Ge orge Va

n B uski rk wa s B ay

Pine s’ s c hie f of sta ff. W al la ce Hopk ins wa s B ay

Pine s’ s di rec tor. B ay

Pine s’ s m ed ic alde pa

rtm ents w erediv ide d int o se rvic es , suc h a s m ed ic ine , surg ery , ge riatric s, a nd m enta l he al th. Servi ce s we re c om prise d of s ec tio ns o f spe ci fic fie lds , suc h a s pu lm onol ogy , c ardi olo gy , an d ho spi ta lis ts. At B ay

Pine s, ne urolo gy

be ca m e its own se rvic e in 2 002, but wa s rea ligne d a s a

se ct ion in m ed ic ine se rvic es in 2006 . Whil e ne urolo gy wa s a se ct ion in m ed ic ine se rvic es , Lin

wa s Za ch ari ah ’s sup ervi sor. In Augu st 2 007, Gows ki a nd Za ch ari ah , a lon g wi th D r. Cl au dia Co te and ad m ini stra tiv e as sis ta

nt Roxa nneLa inh art

Bro nne r, who a

re n ot p art ie s to thi s ap pe al , file d a

c om pla int in dis tric t c ourt a ga ins t t

he Sec ret ary , a lle gin g re ta lia tio n an d a ret al iatory

hos til e work e nvi ronm ent. Gows ki a lle ge d th at the hos pit al 2
Dr. Claudia Cote a

nd Rox anne L ainhar

t Bronne r we re suc cessf

ul on their reta liation 2 and hostile work e nvironment claims at trial. The Secre tary does not appe al from those ve rdicts 3ad

m ini stra tio n re ta lia

te d a ga ins t he r afte r she file d a n EEO c om

pla int in Oc tob er 2005 by c ha ngi ng h er d

uty a ssi gnm ents, rem ovi ng h er from c om mitt ee c ha ir posi tio ns a

nd t akinghe r off co m

m itt ee s a lto ge the r, de ny inghe r privi le ge s, repri m an din g he r, co unse lin g he r an d su spe ndi ng h er, re fusin g to inv es tig at e he r al le gatio ns a ga ins t a

not he r doc tor, s oli ci tin g c om pla int s a bout he r, lowe ring h er profic ie nc y

rep orts, a cc usi ng h er o f an a lte rcatio n wi th a

not he r doc tor, a

nd ch argi ng h er $ 18,0 00 for a n a lle ge d debt i nc urred ei ght y ea rs e arl ie r. Za ch ari ah a lle ge d th at , a fte r she file d EEO c om pla int s in Jun e 2005 and April200 6, B ay

Pine s’ s a dm ini stratio n re ta lia te d a ga ins t he r by

low eri ng h er profic ie nc y

rep orts, giv inghe r sm al le r bonu se s th an tho se he r co lle ague s re ce ive d,
sus pe ndi ng h er re se arc h a ct ivi tie s, s horte nin g th e tim e for whic h he r privi le ge s we re a pprove d, re al ign ingne urolo gy a s a se ct ion und er m ed ic ine
se rvic es ,removi ng h er from the rotatio n a s se ct ion

c hie f, ide nti fy inghe r as a pa rtic ipa nt i n a tort c la im , rem ovi ng h er a s le ad er o f thestro ke group , is sui ng a repri m an d for ne gli ge nc e, sus pe ndi ng h er a nd re co m m en din g he r te rm inatio n, a nd de ny inghe r ac ce ss t o th e grie va nc e an d a ppe al s proc es s. II. The Tria l 3 and thus we do not discuss these claims. Be cause we a

re r eviewingthe denial of the Secr etar

y ’s motion for judg ment as a ma tter 3 of law, w e re cite the e vidence here in the light most favor able to the plaintiff doc tors and disreg ard e vidence favor able to the Sec reta ry that the jury

was not re quired to believe
. Ree ves v . 4A. TheRe ta lia tory Sch em e At t ria l, Go wskiand Za ch ari ah a lle ge d th at

Ba y Pine s’ s m an ag em ent “ m ad e a co nc ert ed

e ffort to ret al iatea ga ins t e m plo y ee s who file d EEO c la im s a ga ins t the m , or op pose d th ei r dis cri minatory or ret al iatory

a ct ion s.” The e vid en ce show ed tha t Va n B uski rk and Ho pki ns d id n ot l ook hig hly on e m plo y ee s who file d EEO c om pla int s a nd c arrie d out a

pla n to rem ove the se e m

plo y ee s from

Ba y Pine s’ s st aff. As pa

rt of t he sc he m e, Lin , Pat el , a

nd Va n B uski rk (a) t arge te d
em plo y ee s who file d c om

plaint s, (b) s prea d rum ors a bout the doc tors, (c) atte m pte d to ruin thedoc tors’ rep utatio ns a nd c are ers , a

nd (d) c oll ec te d re ports ag ai nst tho se who file d c om

pla int s in an e ffort to te rm inate the m . For hi s pa rt, Hopk ins wa

rned sta ff m em

be rs th at the VA wo uld

not se ttl e frivol ous co m

pla int s an d la wy ers woul d no t run thehos pit al . To ca rry out his pa rt in the sc he m e, Lin
en lis te d B ronne r to u

rge Gowski a

nd Za ch ari ah

to res ign , a

nd h e use d Pate l a s a

“ m ole ” to o bta in Rep orts of C ont ac t (R OC) from oth er s ta ff and

to dis se m inate
ne gativ e inform at ion

a bout bot h Gow skia

nd Za ch ari ah
. Othe r doc tors an d st aff m em be rs we re a

ware o f the sc he m e an d, be twe en 2006 and 2 007, m any

of B ay Pine s’ s do ct ors l eft

the hos pit alout

of fea r of be ing ta rget ed . Doc tors an d nu

rse s we re t old

to submit ROC s on

the ir inte rac tio ns wi th
Sanderson Plumbing Prod. , 530 U.S. 133, 148-51 (2000). 5Gowski a

nd Za ch ari ah

wit h Pate l so m et im es dic tatin g wha t t he sta ff shoul d writ e. Seve ralsta ff m em

be rs te sti fie d th at

if th ey did not go alon g wi th Pa

te l a nd Li n’ s sc he m e, the y

woul d be ta

rget ed a s we ll. B. Gowski’ s C la im s Gowski t es tifi ed

tha t B ay Pine s wa s a

hos til e work e nvi ronm ent ful l of fe ar an d re ta lia

tio n. She fel t t

hat Li n, Pate l, a

nd Va n B uski rk e nga ge d in

c ha rac te r as sa ssi natio n, so lic ite d c om pla int s from

oth er s ta ff, que sti one d he r et hic s, a nd ha rm ed he r repu ta tio n. Gowski ha d tra ine d in

c riti ca l-c are m ed ic ine and wo rked in the MIC U unt il Jul y 200 5, wh en

Pat elinform ed

he r that sh e woul d rota

te a ssi gnm ents i n tw om ont h c y cl es ; sh e woul d work on t he ge ne ralm ed ic alwa

rds for t wo m ont hs a nd the n sp en d tw o m ont

hs i n th e MIC U. B ut b y

Jun e 2006 , a fte r Gowski ha d fil ed 4 he r EEO c om

pla int , Lin

and Pate l re fuse d to a llo w Gows ki t o rota te throu gh t

he MIC U. An d whe n Li n a

nd Pa te l a rrange d to provi de hos pit al ist c ove ragefor
ca rdiol ogy in Ja nua ry 200 7, Go wskiwa s no t on e of thehos pit al ist s a ssi gne d. Gowski wa s a

ppoi nte d to the Cri tic alCa re C om m itt ee in 2003 and s he be ca m e the c om

m itt ee c ha ir in

Nove m be r 2004 . Al tho ugh the usu alte rm for a
Gowski did not alleg e that her remova l from MI CU was re taliatory ; she claimed it wa s 4 based on r elig ious discrimination. But we mention it herebeca use she r aises these events a s part of her claim for injunctive r elief a nd as an e x ample of the inconsistent jury verdic t. 6co m

m itt ee c ha ir wa s tw o y ea

rs, Gow ski wa s re m ove d from the pos iti on i n Ju ly 2005
. B y

Ja nua ry 200 6, sh e wa s no t e ve n a m em be r of theCri tic alCa

re 5 Co m m itt ee . Gow ski wa s a lso a m em be r of theCo de Blue Co m m itt ee , a nd al tho ugh she e xpre sse d a

n inte res t i n be ingthe c om m itt ee c ha ir, sh e wa s no t
se le ct ed . Whe n sh e le arne d a not he r doc tor ha d be en

a ppoi nte d, sh e que sti one d th e ap poi ntm ent du

ring a c om m itt ee m ee tin g. Aft er t

he m ee tin g, m em

be rs of th e co m m itt ee c om

pla ine d th at

Gows ki’ s be havio r ha d be en a ggre ssi ve and
co nfronta tio na l. In April200 6, Go wskisou ght to rene w he r hosp ita l pri vil eg es . Al tho ugh Pat eland Li n in iti al ly

signe d off on

a ll the privi le ge s sh e requ es te d, sh e late r le arne d th at

the Profess ion alSta

nda rds B oa rd (PSB) ha d no t a

pprove d c ert ai n privi le ge s ne ce ssa

ry to he r work i n th e cri tic al -ca re u nit s. B ec au se it

wa s ad va nta ge ous to p at ie nt c are to have a c riti ca l-c are c ert ifie d ho spi ta lis t, a nd be ca use the los s of p rivil eg es woul d m ak e it diffic ult to ret ai n he r crit ic al -ca

re ce rtific at ion , Gows ki b el ie ve d th e de ci sio n to li m it he r privi le ge s wa s pa rt of t he ret al iatory

sc he m e. Lin

pre se nte d he r ap pli ca

tio n to thePSB, a

nd Va n B uski rk wa s the PSB c ha ir.

Gowski later e x plained that her remova l was re ligious discrimination and not 5 reta liation. L ike the re moval from the MI CU, this incident is relevant to Gowski’s late r cla ims of er ror. 7In Jul y 200 6, Go wskiatte nde d a hos pit al ist

m ee tin g at wh ic h Pate l di sc uss ed the pe ndi ng m ove of th e ne urolo gy de pa rtm ent i nto the m ed ic ine se rvic e. Gows ki ha d m any c onc erns a

bout theproc ed

ures foll owin g th e m ove , a nd, a lth ough

she
em ai le d Li n a

nd Pate l a bout the m prior t o th e m ee tin g, sh e ha d no t re ce ive d a
res pons e. Afte r she rei te rat ed he r co nc erns at t

he m ee tin g, sh e wa s re prim an de d for dis rupti ve be havio r an d un profes sio na l c ondu ct . A fe w we ek s la te r, she wa s rea ssi gne d to wa

rd 5-A. Shortl y the rea fte r in De ce m

be r 2006 , Gows ki l ea

rned tha t he r pe rsonn elfile show ed tha t sh e ha d be en

inv olu nta rily te rm inate d in

199 9. Whe n sh e inq

uire d ab out c orrec tin g th e error, s he wa s to ld t hat i f she m ad e the c ha

nge s to sho w she ha d vo lunta

rily res ign ed , shewoul d owe $18 ,000 tha t sh e ha d re ce ive d a s spe ci al ity pa y . She a ppl ie d for a

wa ive r of li ab ili ty

so t hat sh e woul d no t ha

ve to repa y , but Hopkins de nie d he r requ es t. In April200 7, Li n is sue d a propo se d a

two -wee k su spe nsi on b as ed on a patte rn of un

profes sio na l c ondu ct

in co nne ct ion

wit h a n in ci de nt w ith

nurseMa ry Howe ll. Howe ll ac cu se d Gow ski of be ingdis res pe ct ful wh en a patie nt i n he r ca

re ne ed ed to be m ove d to a

not he r unit . Li n di d no t i nte rvie w Gows ki b efore
rec om m en din g th e sus pe nsi on. Hopk ins rev ie we d Li n’ s re co m m en datio n a

nd iss ue d th e sus pe nsi on for o ne we ek ins te ad of two . Theonl y

e vid en ce Hopkins

8co nsi de red wa s Gow ski ’s prior reprim an d, but Go wskiha d no t be en int ervi ew ed be fore t hat re prim an d e ith er. In Augu st 2 007, Gows ki mad e a co m m ent du ring a m ee tin g a

bout anot he r doc tor’ s pl an s to le av e Ba y Pine s. L in a

nd Pate l ga

ve he r a v erba l c ouns el ingfor inv adingthe priva cy

of a not he r doc tor a

nd wa rned he r tha t t erminatio n wou ld b e ne xt. C. Za ch ari ah ’s Cl ai m s Za ch ari ah fel t t he hos til ity

at B ay Pine s da ily . Thee nvi ronm ent wa s so ret al iatory , shewoul d so m et im es bre ak down and c ry . Za ch ari ah

wa s th e ch ie f of the ne urolo gy

se rvic e unt il 2006 , whe n Va n B uski rk rea lig ne d ne urolo gy a s a se ct ion und er m ed ic ine se rvic es in ret al iatio n for c om plaint s sh e ha d fil ed . Onc e ne urolo gy

wa s m ove d into m ed ic ine se rvic es , th e posi tio n of s ec tio n c hie f was to rotate a m ong the ne urolo gis ts, but Za ch ari ah

wa s no t i nc lud ed

in therotatio n. She al so wa s no t pe rm itt ed

to at te nd e ve ry

grand rou

nds be ca use atte nda

nc e woul d rotate a m ong al l t

he m em be rs of th e ne urolo gy

se ct ion . Whe n sh e as ke d Va n Bu ski rk a bout the de pa rtm ent m ove , he tol d he r it w as due to a ba ck logof EEGs
an d th e av ai la

bil ity of out -pat ie nt c lin ic s. B ut t he de ci sio ns we re p urel y

ret al iatory , an d Li n, wh o wa s c hie f of the m ed ic ine se rvic e, wa s no t re prim an de d for th e al le ge d ba ck log
.
9Whe n Za ch ari ah wa s re m ove d a s se rvic e ch ie f, he r sa la ry de cre as ed

by $20, 000. Alt

houg h th e co m

pe nsatio n c om

m itt ee wa s re spon sib le for de te rm ini ng sa la ry , Va n B uski rk, a s c ha ir of t

he c om m itt ee , use d it

to m ak e his de ci sio ns. In 200 5, Za ch ari ah

de ve lop ed

a res ea rch stu dy to revi ewhow m igra ine patie nts res pond ed

to the use of B oto x a s tre at m ent. T he stu dy

wa s a ret rospe ct ive revi ewof patie nt c ha

rts t o a sc ert ai n re sul ts. Za ch ari ah a pproa ch ed

a m em be r of the Inst itutio na l R ev ie w B oa rd (IRB ) an d re ce ive d a

pprova l for t

he stu dy e ve n tho ugh a ret

rospe ct ive stu dy

woul d bee xe m

pt from IRB regulatio ns. The IRB c om

m itt eewa s ha

nd-pi ck ed by Lin and Va n B uski rk. It l at er de te rm ine d th at

Za ch ari ah

c ondu ct ed

the stu dy wit hout a pprova l, s uspe nde d he r from e nga gin g in

any res ea rch for one y ea

r, an d pl ac ed

he r on l ife tim e probatio n. The Re se arc h a

nd De ve lop m ent C om

m itt ee (R& D) inc rea se d th e puni shm ent t o a two-y ea r susp en sio n. Va

n B uski rk and Ho pki ns we re p res ent at t he c om m itt ee
m ee tin g to a ddre ss Z ac ha ria h’ s re se arc h. No o ne e ve r tol d Za ch ari ah tha t t he 6 proto co l sh e submitt ed

for ap prova l wa s in co m

ple te , a nd n o on e el sewa s pu

nis he d for the ove rsight. L in a lso pun ish ed Za ch ari ah

for pub lis hin g he r rese arc h re sul ts wit hout a pprova l. W

he n sh e trie d to a

ppe althe R& D’ s pu

nis hm ent, s he le arne d Hug o Fe rnande z, the associate c hief of sta ff f or re sear ch at the time of

Z acha riah’s 6 discipline, testified that, in prior ca ses, the IRB would allow r etroa ctive appr oval. B ut Van Buskirk, who was pre sent at the R& D meeting , likely influence d the committee to deny approva l. 10that a

not he r of he r stu die s wa s un de r inve sti ga tio n, a lth ough

no wrongdo ingwa s found. Afte r the inv es tig at ion , Lin trie d to sus pe nd Za ch ari ah , but thesus pe nsi on wa s ov ert urne d. Za ch ari ah ’s rem ai nin g st udi es we re g ive n to oth er d oc tors. Afte r the probl em s wi th h er re se arc h, a nd a round the ti m e she file d he r 2006 EEO c om pla int , Za ch ari ah

le arne d th at

she ha d to ren ewhe r hosp ita l pri vil eg es . Alt hough priv ile ge s we re u sua lly a pprove d for tw o-y ea

r te rm s, s he wa s forc ed

to
rene w he r privi le ge s e ve ry few m ont

hs d ue to a “ cl oud in h er re se arc h.” Va n Bu ski rk use d th e privi le ge ren ew ala s pu nis hm ent. 7 Za ch ari ah wa s pu nis he d e ve ry

few we ek s a fte r she file d he r EEO
co m pla int s. She wa s c ouns el ed be ca use , shewa s to ld, she did not req ue st
m ed ic at ion

c orrec tly . She wa s re m ove d from the stro ke c om

m itt eede spi tea ll of he r work i n ge tti ng B ay

Pine s st roke -ce rtifie d. In fa ct , onc e Ba y Pine s re ce ive d it s ce rtific at ion , Lin

a ppoi nte d a

not he r doc tor, wh o wa s no t a stro ke spe ci al ist

li ke Za ch ari ah , a s di rec tor. The n, i n Ju ly

200 7, Li n re que ste d th at

Za ch ari ah

besus pe nde d for num erou s iss ue s, m any

of whi ch rel at ed to the Bo toxstu dy

for whi ch

she ha d a lre ad

y be en puni she d. She wa s writ

te n up for co nduc t un

be co minga

fed era l e m

plo y ee whe n she m ad e a not at ion

a bout hos pit alpol ic y

in a patie nt’ s c ha

rt. B ay Pine s’ s
Acc ordingto PS B me mber Charles Hirt, at the mee ting to re view Z acha riah’s 7 privileg es, Va

n Buskirk por

trayed Z acha

riah a s a bad doc tor. 11ad

m ini stra tio n th en li ste d he r nam e as oneof th e doc tors inv olv ed in a tort cl ai m , but it wa s la te r de te rm ine d th at

she wa s no t i nvolve d in

thec la im ant pa

tie nt’ s c are . Lin la te r requ es te d th at

Za ch ari ah

be te rm ina

te d in c onne ct ion

wit h hi s inv es tig ation

int o so m e of he r patie nt fi le s. T o sh ow t hat su ch file s we re routin el y ke pt, Za ch ari ah

broug ht a

dis posa ble c am era

to work a

nd p hot ogra

phe d fil es wit hout c ap turin g a

ny pa tie nt i nform at ion . Sy lvi a Ru sse ll, who ha d a le rte d Li n to the e xis te nc e of thefile s, wrot e an RO C c la imingtha

t sh e sa w Za ch ari ah

ta kin g phot os. Ru sse ll rec ei ve d a bon us a nd a prom oti on a fte r writi ng t he RO C o n Za ch ari ah . No one e lse who kept s im ila r file s wa s pu

nis he d. Za ch ari ah be lie ve d th at

a ll of thedis cipli ne wa s du e to h er EE O c om pla int s. She fel t di sgra ce d a

nd s uffere d sl eeple ss n ights a wa iti ng t he ne xt p uni shm ent. C. Proce dura l M at

te rs At t he c los e of thedoc tors’ c as e an d a ga in a t t he c los e of a ll thee vid en ce , the Sec ret ary

m ove d for ju dgm ent a s a m at te r of la w und er R

ule50. The c ourt de nie d th e m oti on a

nd a llo we d th e ret al ia

tio n a nd h ost ilework e nvi ronm ent c la im s to g o to the jury . Thedoc tors requ es te d th at the jury be ins truc te d th at

e ac h inc ide nt o f reta lia

tio n wa s a

sepa rat e cl ai m . Thec ourt s tate d th at it woul d in struc t the jury tha t t he doc tors ha d to prove tha t “ one or m ore” of th e ret al iatory a ct s oc cu rred. Co unse l i ndi ca

te d th at thi s in struc tio n wa s a cc ep ta ble
.
12In c los ingargum ent, a fte r lis tin g th e ret al iatory a ction s a lle ge d, t

he doc tors’
co unse l st at ed : [I]f y ou fin d on e of tho se a dve rse a ct s we re t he res ult of th at ret al iatio n, a

nd wh en y ou g et to theve rdic t form

y ou m ark, y es , the re’ s re ta lia

tio n. Yo u do it

whe the r y ou fin d on e or a ll of the m . So, ea ch of th em ha ve the ir own

sepa rat e cl ai m . So, i f y ou fin d on e of the ret al iatio n a ct ion s, t

he n y ou’ ll find re ta lia

tio n. Addre ssi ng d am ag es , c ouns elsta te d th at Gows ki i nc urred da

m ag es in the am ount of $15 ,250 for thefai lure to rec ei ve m arke t pa y and for h er s uspe nsi on. Za ch ari ah los t $6 ,730 durin g he r susp en sio n a nd $ 82,3 64 for h er l oss of th e se ct ion -chi ef posi tio n. The Sec ret ary

argue d in c los ingtha

t t he re wa s no ret al iatio n a

nd t hat t he doc tors sim

ply se co nd-gue sse d m an ag em ent’ s de ci sio ns a nd wa nte d to run t

he hosp ita l. In rebutta l, t

he doc tors’ c ouns elsta

te d, “ ea ch of th ose c la im s a

re s ep arate cl ai m s . . . of re ta lia

tio n. If y ou fin d on e of the m , y ou c he ck off y es for ret al iatio n.” Afte r lis tin g e ac h of t

he doc tors’ c la im s, t

he c ourt i nst

ruct ed the jury tha t t he doc tors we re re qui red to p rove “ [t] hat on e or m ore ad ve rse e m plo ym ent a ction s oc cu rred.” The c ourt t

he n e xpl ai ne d th e ve rdic t form , whi ch se t out e ac h pla intiff’s c la im s sepa

rat el y . In a

sid eb ar d isc uss ion , th e doc tors’ atto rney s st at ed that t he y sti ll be lie ve d th e ret al ia

tio n de sc ripti on s houl d c le arl y sta te tha t e ac h

13inc ide nt w as a sepa rat e ad ve rse e m plo ym ent a ct ion . Thec ourt d isa gree d be ca use thi s wa s m entio ne d c le arl y in the pla intiffs’ c los ingargum ent a nd i n th e co urt’ s ins truc tio ns. Duringit s de lib era

tio ns, t he jury a ske d whe the r it w as answe ring fo r al l pla intiffs or for e ac h in div idu al . Thedoc tors’ c ouns ela ga in ra ise d th e iss ue of th e jury ins truc tio n, bu

t t he c ourt s tate d th at

thejury wa s no t a ski ng a

bout e ac h a ct of ret al iatio n. Th e jury

found tha t Go wskiand Za ch ari ah

e xpe rie nc ed

ret al iatio n, but that t he Sec ret ary

woul d ha ve ta ke n th e sam e ac tio ns e ve n in the a bse nc e of the prote ct ed a ct ivi ty . Thejury

a lso found

tha t bo th d oc tors expe rie nc ed a ret al iatory host ilework e nvi ronm ent. T he jury awarded Gows ki $ 250, 000 in e m oti ona l dam ag es and $ 16,0 00 i n lo st w ag es . Thejury awarded Za ch ari ah

$1,0 00,0 00 i n em oti ona l da

m ag es and $ 90,0 00 i n lo st w ag es . III. Post-tria l M oti ons A. Ju dgm ent a s a

Ma tte r of La w The Sec ret ary

file d a pos t-ve rdic t m oti on for j udgm ent a s a m at te r of la w unde r Ru le 50, argu ingtha t, e ve n if a

ret al iatory

hos til e work e nvi ronm ent c la im
wa s c ogni za

ble in the Ele ve nth

Ci rcui t, disc ret e ac ts o f reta lia tio n c oul d no t form the ba sis of th e cl ai m . Thu s, t he Sec ret ary

argue d, t he doc tors’ c la im

fai le d be ca use the onl y

e vid en ce the y

put forth w erethe dis cre te a ct s.

14The dis tric t c ourt d en ie d th e jud gm ent a s a m at te r of la w, find ingtha

t t he Ele ve nth Ci rcui t wo uld

rec ogni ze a

hos til e work e nvi ronm ent c la im , a nd t he c ourt found suffic ie nt e vid en ce of it in thi s c as e. B. Re m ittitu

r The Sec ret ary

req ue ste d a remitt itu r of the dam ag es am ount , or a ne w trial on d am ag es , be ca

use theam ount

found by the jury e xc ee de d wha

t wa s e sta bli she d by the e vid en ce . TheSec ret ary not ed tha t, u nde r 42 U.S.C . § 1 981a (b)(3)(D),
co m pe nsatory dam ag es we re c ap pe d at $3 00,0 00. Be ca use Za ch ari ah ’s e m oti ona l dam ag es am ount

e xc ee de d th e ca

p, i t m ust be remitt ed . Add iti ona lly , Za ch ari ah ’s dam ag e aw ard wa s du e to b e redu ce d be ca use the re wa s no e vid en ce to show
em oti ona l di stre ss g ive n he r te sti m ony . Fina lly , th e Sec ret ary a sse rte d th at Gowski’ s a

ward wa s no t su

pport ed by the e vid en ce . The c ourt fo und that l ost

wa ge s we re n ot re co ve rabl e in a hos til e work
environm ent c as e unl es s th e pla int iff ha s be en c onst ruct ive ly dis ch arge d. 8 Co nsi de ring t

he am ount s foun d by

the jury , th e co urt c onc lud ed tha t t he jury wa s at te m pti ng t o a ward los t wa ge s on

the hos til e work e nvi ronm ent c la im , whi ch wa s prec lud ed a s a m at te r of la w. Ac co rding ly , th e co urt va ca te d th e aw ards of lo st Although the doctors argued that the Sec reta ry waived a ny objection to the lost-wag es 8 awa rd, we disagree . See A kouri v. Fla. De p’t of Transp. , 408 F.3d 1338, 1344 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that, a lthough the de fenda nt had ra ised objection to damag es instruction at cha rg e confe renc e, the district cour t found it was better

raised in a

post-verdic t motion). 15wa ge s. T he c ourt d ec lin ed to remit the dam ag es furthe r, findi ng t hat t he awards
we re “ne ith er g rossl y

e xc es siv e nor sh oc kin g to the c onsc ie nc e. ” C. The Doc tors’ Ne w Tria l M oti on The doc tors m ove d for a

ne w tria l on

the ret al iatio n c la im s, a

rguin g th at

the jury ve rdic ts w ere inc onsi ste nt. Spe ci fic al ly , th e doc tors not ed tha t t he jury found in fa vor of c o-pla int iff Cl au dia Co te , but a ppl ie d th e sam e-de ci sio n de fens e to Gowski on

the sa m e iss ue . The y

a lso argue d th at

the y we re e nti tle d to a

ne w tria l 9 due to the c ourt’ s fa ilu

re t o gi ve the req

ue ste d ju ry ins truc tio n. Th e co urt de nie d the m oti on, fi ndi ng t

hat t he jury ve rdic ts w ere c onsi ste nt. The c ourt also found no error i n th e jury

ins truc tio ns b ec au se theins truc tio ns, a s gi ve n, c ove red the doc tors’ c onc erns , a

nd c ouns elrep ea

te dly sta te d in c los ingargum ent t

ha t e ac h a ct of ret al iatio n wa s a

sepa rat e cl ai m . D. Inju nc tiv e Re lie f On t he doc tors’ m oti on, t

he dis tric t c ourt grant ed

e qui ta blerel ie f as foll ows: (1) prohibit ingany

ret al ia tory pra ct ic es ; (2) pre ve nti ng t he Sec ret ary

from ta kin g any dis cipli na

ry a ct ion a ga ins t t he doc tors for thre e y ea

rs unl es s a

pprove d by ind ep en de nt re vie w; (3) o rderi ng t he VA st aff to pa

rtic ipate in dis cri m inatio n The plaintiffs a

rgue that the inconsistenc y arises f rom the jury ’s verdict that the 9 Secre tary reta liated ag ainst Cote by removingGowski from the MI CU, but applied the same decision def

ense to Gow ski. The flawin this argument is that Gowski’s remova l was not part of Gowski’s re taliation claim – she cla imed it was relig ious discrimination, which the jury reje cted. 16worksh ops an d po st t he ve rdic t; (4) rem ovi ng t he doc tors’ dis cipli na

ry file s a nd prev entin g th ei r use in any furthe r dis cipli na

ry a ct ion ; (5) orde ring t

hat t he doc tors be a ppoi nte d to a ddi tio na l ho spi ta l c om m itt ee s; (6 ) orde ring t

ha t Go wskibe pla ce d ba ck on t he rotatio n for duty

a ssi gnm ents a

nd b e pe rm itt ed

to obt ai n th e ne ce ssa

ry cre de nti al s a

nd p rivil eg es to do s o; a

nd (7) o rderi ng t

ha t Za ch ari ah

be pe rm itt ed

to
co nti nue he r rese arc h. Th e Sec ret ary opp ose d e qui ta

ble rel ie f on t

he groun d th at the jury a ppl ie d th e sam e-de ci sio n de fens e. IV. Appe al The Sec ret ary

now ap pe al s, ra isi ng fou

r iss ue s: (1 ) the dis tric t c ourt e rred b y de ny ingthem oti on for j udgm ent a s a m at te r of la w; (2) t he dis tric t c ourt e rred b y de ny ingthem oti on for re mittitu r; (3) th e dis tric t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc ret ion

in
aw ardi ng i nju

nc tiv e rel ie f; a

nd (4) t he pla intiffs we re n ot e nti tle d to atto rney s’ fee s. The doc tors cros s-a

ppe al , rai sin g tw o is sue s: (1 ) the y we re e nti tle d to a

ne w trial on t he ret al iatio n c la im s; a

nd (2) t he dis tric t c ourt e rred b y

va ca tin g th e aw ard for los t wa ge s. 1 0
After revie wingthe re cord, a

nd with the benef

it of oral argument, we a ffirm thre e 1 0 issues without further discussion. F irst, we af firm the aw ard of

attorney s’ fe es bec ause the plaintiffs in this case we re a preva iling par

ty and, as suc h, wer e entitled to fe es. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5( k). In addition, we conc lude that the district cour t properly vacated the lost wag es awa rds bec ause the re is no dispute that Gowski and Z acha riah we re not c onstructively discharg ed. See Spence r v. W al-Mart Stores, Inc. , 469 F.3d 311, 317 ( 3d Cir. 2006) (holding that a hostile work e nvironment claim alone , in the absenc e of a succe ssful constructivedischarg e cla im, is i nsufficie nt to support an awa rd for lost wag es); Mallinson-Montague v. Pocrnick, 224 F.3d 1224, 1236- 37 (10th Cir. 2000) (same ). More over, to the e x tent that the 17A. Sta nda rds of R ev ie w W e revi ew

the de nia l of a

m oti on for j udgm ent a s a m at te r of la w denov o . Gupt a v . Fla . Bd. of R egen ts , 212 F.3d 5 71, 5 82 (11 th C ir. 20 00). W e revi ewthe dis tric t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to grant e qui ta ble rel ie f for ab use of di sc ret ion , und erl y ing que sti ons of la

w denov o , a

nd fin din gs o f fac t un de r the c le arly e rroneo us s ta

nda rd. Pre fe rre d Si te

s, LLC v. Troup Cn ty . , 296 F.3d 1 210, 122 0 (11t h C ir. 20 02). W e revi ew

jury ins truc tio ns for a

buseof di sc ret ion

and g ive tria l j udge s

“ wide dis cre tio n a s to the sty le and wo rdinge m plo y ed .” Farley

v . N ati onw ide Mut. Ins. C

o. , 197 F.3d 1 322, 132 9 (11t h C ir. 19 99). W e revi ewjury ins truc tio ns denov o to de te rm ine whe the r the y m iss tate the la

w or misl ea d th e jury
. Co nroy v . Abra ham C

he vrole t-Tampa, Inc
. , 375 F.3d 1 228, 123 3 (11t h C ir. 20 04). M oti ons for ne w tria l on

the ba sis of e rroneo us a

nd p rej udi ci aljury

ins truc tio ns a

re wi thi n the dis tric t c ourt’ s di sc ret ion and a re re vie we d for a

buseof di sc ret ion
. Patev .

awa rds re flec t lost wag es for

discrete events to which the same-de cision defe nse applied, damag es we re not available a s a matter of law. Pennington v. City of Huntsville , 261 F.3d 1262, 1270 (11th Cir. 2001); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g )(2) (B ). F inally , we c onclude that the district court prope rly

declined to f

urther r emit the damag es. The jur y initially awa rded G owski $250,000 and Z acha

riah $1,000,000 in emotional dama g es. Z acha riah’s a ward was re mitted to $300,000 to refle ct the statutory cap. A s a g eneral rule, “ a re mitti tur order reduc ing a

jury ’s awa rd to the outer limit of the proof is the appropriate re medy wher e the jury ’s damag e aw ard exceeds the a

mount established by

the evidenc e.” Rodriguez v. Farm Stores Grocery , Inc. , 518 F.3d 1259, 1266 ( 11th Cir. 2008) (interna l citation omitt ed). Wherea district cour t has alre ady “invoked its discre tion in gra nting a remittitur, our scope of

revie w is even na

rrowe r than usual.” Stapleton v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd. , 608 F.2d 571, 574 n.7 ( 5th Cir. 1979). Given our limit ed scope of re view, wecannot sa y the cour t abused its discretion by

decliningto reduc e the awa rd fur ther. 18Se aboa rd R .R., Inc
. , 819 F.2d 1 074, 107 7 (11t h C ir. 19 87). B. The Sec ret ary ’s Mo tio n for Ju dgm ent a s a Ma tte r of La w Unde r Ru le 50, a co urt s houl d re nde r judg m ent a s a m at te r of la w whe n the re i s no le ga lly

suffic ie nt e vid entia

ry ba sis for a rea sona

ble jury to find fo r that pa rty on t hat i ssu e. Fed . R . C iv. P. 50. W e revi ew a ll of thee vid en ce in therec ord
an d dra w a ll rea sona

ble infe renc es in favo r of the nonm ovi ng p art y . Clev el and v. HomeSho

ppi ng N et wo rk , Inc
. , 369 F.3d 1 189, 119 2-93 (11 th C ir. 20 04) (c iti ng Re ev es v . San de rso n Pl

umbi ng Prod. , 530 U.S. 13 3, 14 8-51 (20 00)). “ Cre dib ili ty de te rm ina tio ns, t he we igh ingof th e ev ide nc e, and t he drawingof le git im at e infe renc es from

the fac ts a

re j ury func tio ns, n ot t

hoseof a jud ge .” Re ev es , 530 U.S. at 15 0; se e als o Owe ns v . W ain wr igh t , 698 F.2d 1 111, 111 3 (11t h C ir. 19 83) (“ Appe lla te c ourts rev ie winga

c old rec ord gi ve pa

rtic ula r de fere nc e to c redibil ity de te rm ina tio ns o f a fa ct -finde r who h ad the opp ortun ity

to se e liv e te sti m ony .” ).

“ [A]l tho ugh the c ourt s houl d re vie w th e rec ord a s a whol e, it m ust dis rega rd a ll
ev ide nc e favo rabl e to t

he m ovi ng p art

y tha t t he jury is not req uire d to be lie ve .” Re ev es , 530 U.S. at 15 1. “ [I]f th ere is subs ta nti alc onfli ct

in thee vid en ce , suc h th at
rea sona ble and fa ir-mind ed

pe rsons in the e xe rci se of im pa rtia l j udgm ent might
rea ch diffe rent c onc lus ion s, t

he m oti on m

ust be de nie d.” Ch ris top he r v . Flo rid a , 449 F.3d 13 60, 1 364 (11th Ci r. 2006 ) (inte rnalc ita

tio ns a nd q uot ation m arks

19om itt ed).

Tit le VII prohibit s e m

plo y ers from

ret al iatin g a ga ins t a

n e m plo y ee“be ca

use [s] he ha s op pose d a

ny . . . unl aw ful e m

plo y m ent pra ct ic e . . . o r be ca

use [s] he ha s
m ad e a ch arge , te sti fie d, a ssi ste d, or p art ic ipate d in any m anne r in a

n inve sti gatio n, proc ee din g, or h ea

ring u nde r thi s su

bc ha pte r.” 42 U. S.C. § 20 00e -3(a). T o es ta bli sh a prim a fac iec as e of ret al iatio n, t he pla int iff m

ust sho w th at

(1) she
en ga ge d in

sta tut orily prote ct ed a ct ivi ty ; (2) sh e suffe red a m at eri al ly a dve rse em plo ym ent a ct ion ; a

nd (3) t he re wa s a

c au sa l l ink

be twe en the two . Dix on v .

1 1 The Hall mark Co mpan ie

s, Inc
. , 627 F.3d 8 49, 8 56 (11 th C ir. 20 10). T o e sta bli sh a host ilework e nvi ronm ent c la im und er Ti tleVII, thepla int iff m ust sho w th at

“ the workpl ac e is p erm ea

te d wi th d isc rim inatory

int im idatio n, rid ic ule , a

nd i nsul t, t

hat is s uffic ie ntl y

se ve re o r pe rvas ive to al te r the c ondi tio ns o f the vic tim ’s
em plo ym ent a

nd c reate an a

busi ve worki ng e nvi ronm ent.” Harr is v . For klift Sy s., Inc. , 510 U.S. 17 , 21 (1993); Miller v . K en wo rth of Doth an, Inc
. , 277 F.3d 1 269, 1275 (11th

Ci r. 2002 ). 1. Do es the Ele ve nth

Ci rcui t re co gni ze a

c la im for ret al ia

tory host ilework e nvi ronm ent? This c ourt h as y et

to rec ogni ze a

ret al iatory

hos til e work e nvi ronm ent c la im
. But e ve ry oth er c irc uit

doe s. Se e Cleg

g v . Ark . De p’t of Co rr. , 496 F.3d 9 22, 9 28- The pa rties agree that Gowski and Z acha riah e ng ag ed in a pr otected a ctivity
. 1 1 2029 (8t

h C ir. 20 07); Jo rdan v . C ity of Clev el and, 464 F.3d 5 84, 5 98 (6t h C ir. 20 06); Je nse n v . Potte r , 435 F.3d 4 44 (3d Ci r. 2006 ), abro

gated on o the r ground

s by Burlington N. &San ta F

e Ry . C o. v . W hite , 548 U.S. 53 (2006 ); Huss ain v . Ni ch ols on , 435 F.3d 3 59, 3 66-67 (D.C. Ci r. 2006 ); No vi ello v . C ity of Bost on , 398 F.3d 76 , 88 (1st Ci r. 2005 ); Von Gunten v . Mar yl and, 243 F.3d 8 58, 8 64-65 (4th Ci r. 2001 ), arbrogated

on o the r ground

s by Burlington N. , 548 U.S. 53 ; Ray v . He nde rso n , 217 F.3d 1 234, 124 4-45 (9t h C ir. 20 00); Ric hard

son v. N. Y. Sta te De p’t of Co rr. Se rv . , 180 F.3d 4 26, 4 46 (2d Ci r. 1999 ), abrogated

on o the r grou nds by

Bur lingto n N

. , 548 U.S. 53 ; Gunn ell v . Uta h Valle y Sta teCo ll. , 152 F.3d 12 53, 1 264 (10th

Ci r. 1998 ); Kn ox

v . Indi ana , 93 F.3d 13 27, 1 334-35 (7th Ci r. 1996 ). 1 2 W e now j oin

our s ist er c irc uit s a

nd re co gni ze the c au se of a ct ion . Doi ng s o is c onsi ste nt w ith

the sta tut ory te xt, co ngre ssi ona l i nte nt, an d th e EEOC ’s own int erpre tatio n of t

he sta tut e. Se e No vi ello , 398 F.3d at 89 -90; se e als o 42 U. S.C. § 20 00e -2(a); EEOC Co m pl. Ma n. (C CH) ¶ 8 005, § 8-II.D.3 (2004). As t he First Ci rcui t e xpl ai ne d, Give n C ongre ss’ s inte nti on t o st rike at t he e nti re s pe ct

rum of di spa rat e tre at m ent of m en

and wo m en

in em plo ym ent, wh ic h in clude s
The F ifth Circuit recognized the causeof ac tion under the Ene rgy Reorg anization 1 2 Act’s whistleblowe r provision. W illiams v. Admin. Revie w Bd. , 376 F.3d 471, 476- 77 (5th Cir. 2004). 21requ iringpe opl e to w ork in a dis cri m inatoril y

hos til e or a

busi ve environm ent, i t m ak es se nse to co nst rue thequa lifi er (re ga

rding “ co m pe nsa tio n, t erm s, c ondi tio ns, o r privi le ge s of e m plo ym ent” ) broa dly . On t

hat ba sis , th e ve rb “ dis cri m inate ,” a s us ed in se ct ion 2000 e-2(a)(1), logi ca lly

inc lud es sub

je ct inga pe rson t o a

hos til e work environm ent . . . . Ti tleVII’s anti -reta lia tio n prov isi on . . . di rec ts a n em plo y er n ot t o di sc rim inate a ga ins t a ny e m plo y ee“be ca

use [the em plo y ee ] ha s m ad e a ch arge , te sti fie d, a ssi ste d, or p art ic ipate d in any m anne r in a

n inve sti ga

tio n, proc ee din g, or h ea

ring u nde r [Titl e VII].” 42 U. S.C. § 20 00e -3(a). He re, t he te rm “ dis cri m inate ” ap pe ars wit hout the qua lifi er. Afamili ar c an on o f co nst ruction te ac he s th at

a te rm ap pe ari ng i n se ve ralpla ce s in a sta tut ory te xt i s ge ne ral ly

rea d th e sam e wa y e ac h ti m e it ap pe ars . W e ap ply tha t c an on h ere . The res ult : the ve rb “ dis cri m inate ” in t he anti -reta lia

tio n c la use inc lud es subj ec tin g a

pe rson t o a

hos til e work e nvi ronm ent. No vi ello , 398 F.3d at 89 -90 (inte rnalquo tatio n m arks and c ita tio ns o m itt ed). Addi tio na lly , it

is co nsi ste nt w ith

Tit le VII’s rem ed ia l go aland p reve nts supe rviso rs from

de te rring p rote ct ed

c ondu ct . Id. Ac co rding ly , we hol d th at thi s ci rcui t re co gni ze s a

c au se of a ct ion

for ret al iatory

hos til e work e nvi ronm ent. 2. Is t he re s uffic ie nt e vid en ceof th e ret al iatory hos til e work environm ent? Havin g re co gni ze d th e ca use of a ct ion , we m

ust rev ie w whe the r the e vid en ce in t his c as e wa s su ffici ent t o e sta bli sh t he c la im . He re, t

he que sti on i s whe the r a rea sona ble jury c oul d ha ve found tha t t he Sec ret ary , through Lin, Pat el , a nd Va n Bu ski rk, su

bje ct ed Gows ki a

nd Za ch ari ah

to a host ilework e nvi ronm ent i n ret al iatio n for th ei r EEO a ct ivi ty . To so fi nd, t he jury ha d to c onc lud e that t

he
ac tio ns c om

pla ine d of we re s uffic ie ntl y se ve re o r pe rvas ive to al te r the te rm s a nd 22co ndi tio ns o f em plo ym ent, t

hus co nst itutin g a

n a dve rse e m

plo ym ent a ct ion
. The req uire m ent t

ha t t he ha ras sm ent be“ se ve re o r pe rvas ive ” co nta ins an obj ec tiv e an d a

sub je ct ive c om

pone nt. Miller , 277 F.3d at 12 76. “ Thus , to be
ac tio na ble , th is b eh av ior m

ust res ult in bot h a n e nvi ronm ent t

ha t a rea sona ble pe rson w oul d find

hos til e or a

busi ve and a

n e nvi ronm ent t

hat t he vic tim subj ec tiv el y

pe rce ive [s]
. . . to b e ab usi ve .” Id. (int erna l qu otatio n m arks om itt ed). In e va luatin g th e obj ec tiv e se ve rity of th e ha ras sm ent, t

his c ourt l ooks at t

he tot al ity of th e ci rcum sta

nc es and c onsi de rs, am ong oth er t hin gs: “ (1) the frequ en cy of thec ondu ct ; (2) t

he se ve rity

of th e co nduc t; (3) whe the r the c ondu ct is phy sic al ly

thre at en ingor humili at ing , or a m ere offen siv e utt era

nc e; and (4) whe the r the c ondu ct

unre as ona

bly int erfe res wit

h th e em plo y ee ’s job pe rform an ce .” Id. “ [W] he the r an e nvi ronm ent i s ‘ hostile ’ or ‘ ab usi ve ’ ca n be de te rm ine d on ly

by loo kin g at a ll the c irc um sta nc es .” Harr is , 510 U.S. a t 23
. Disc ret e ac ts c annot

a lon e form

the basi s of a hos til e work e nvi ronm ent cl ai m . Se e Dav is v . C

oc a-Co la B ottling C

o. C onso l. , 516 F.3d 9 55, 9 70 (11 th C ir. 2008 ) (em

pha sis a dde d); se e als o McC ann v. Till

man , 526 F.3d 1 370, 137 8 (11t h Ci r. 2008 ) (as oppo se d to “ [d] isc ret e ac ts s uc h a s te rm ina tio n, fa ilu re t o prom ote , de nia l of t rans fer, or re fusa l t o hi re,” a hos til e work e nvi ronm ent c la im a ddre sse s ac ts “ diffe rent

in kin d” whos e “ ve ry

nature inv olv es rep ea

te d c ondu ct ,” suc h a s
23“ ‘d isc rim inatory int im idatio n, rid ic ule , a

nd i nsul t.’ ” (quot ing Na t’l R .R. Passe nge r Co rp. , 536 U.S. at 11 7)). B ut t he jury c oul d c onside r dis cre te a ct s a s pa rt of a host ilework e nvi ronm ent c la im
. Se e, e .g. , Na t’l R .R. Passe nge r C orp. , 536 U.S. at 117 (a h ost ilework e nvi ronm ent c la im de pe nds on “ a se rie s of s ep arate a ct s th at
co lle ct ive ly

c onst itute one‘ unl aw ful e m plo ym ent pra ct ic e. ’”(int erna l c ita tio n om itt ed)); se e als o C

hamb le ss v . Loui sia na-Pac ifi c Co rp. , 481 F.3d 1 345, 134 9-50 (11th Ci r. 2007 ) (disc uss ing , for ti m el ine ss p urpos es , di sc ret e ac ts t ha t a re suffic ie ntl y

rel at ed to a host ilework e nvi ronm ent c la im tha t t he y c an be c onsi de red pa rt of t he sa m e cl ai m). The Sec ret ary

argue s th at

the dis cre te a ct s in

thi s c as e ca

nnot be c onsi de red
as pa rt of t he hos til e environm ent be ca use the ret al iatory

int ent wa s no t t

he “but
for” c au se whe re t

he jury a ppl ie d th e sam e de ci sio n de fens e. Alt houg h th e Sec ret ary is co rrec t t

hat t he ret al iatio n m

ust be the “but -for” c au se , we c annot ag ree tha t t he sa m e-de ci sio n de fens e el iminate s su ch c au satio n in

a hos til e work
environm ent c la im . As it doe s in e ve ry c as e in whic h th e sam e-de ci sio n de fens e ap pli es , th e jury

he re fou nd t hat t he dis cre te a ct s we re m oti vate d in pa rt by ret al iatory

anim us. Alt houg h th at

m ay be suffic ie nt u

nde r the sa

m e-de ci sio n de fens e to p rec lud e lia

bil ity for ea ch of th e ac ts i ndi vid

ua lly , it is not e noug h to el im inateli ab ili ty

for the hos til e environm ent c au se d by the ret al iatory

anim us

24whe n th e dis cre te a nd n on-di sc ret e ac ts a

re t ak en c oll ec tiv el y . To al low the sa m ede ci sio n de fens e to e limina te but -for ca

usatio n in a hos til e work e nvi ronm ent c la im woul d e sse nti al ly

do a way wit h th e cl ai m . Thu s, a lth ough the sa m e-de ci sio n de fens e el im inate s but-for c au satio n for e ac h di sc ret e ac tio n, i t do es not e liminate the but -for ca

usatio n th at

m at te rs in a ret al iatory

hos til e work e nvi ronm ent c la im – that i s, t he se ve re a

nd p erva siv e ac cum

ulatio n of a ct ion s th at

woul d no t ha

ve oc cu rred b ut-for th e ret al iatory rea son, e ve n if e ac h a ct ion a lon e wa s ju sti fia

ble
. Havin g re vie we d th e te sti m ony in thi s tri al , a

nd g ivi ng p rope r de fere nc e to the jury ’s c redibil ity

de te rm inatio ns, w e co nc lud e that t he dis tric t c ourt p rope rly de nie d th e m oti on for j udgm ent a s a m at te r of la w. Al tho ugh rea sona

ble pe opl e co uld dis ag ree a

bout thee vid en ce , th ere wa s e noug h for th e jury to co nc lud e that Lin, Pat el , a

nd Va n B uski rk c reate d a

workpl ac e fill ed

wit h intimidatio n a

nd ridic ule tha

t wa s su ffici ently

se ve re a nd p erva siv e to a lte r Gowski a nd Za ch ari ah ’s workin g c ondi tio ns. And a lth ough the dis cre te a ct s of re ta lia tio n pl ay ed

a role in the intimida

tio n a nd ridic ule , th ey

we re c ert ai nly

not the onl y c ondu ct tha t supp orte d th e host ilework e nvi ronm ent c la im . Thee vid en ce he re s howe d th at the ad m ini stra tio n inte nde d to ret al iate a ga ins t Go wskiand Za ch ari ah be ca use of th ei r EEO a ct ivi ty

and t he n c reate d a

hos til e environm ent by

spre ad ingrum ors a

bout the doc tors, dam ag ingthe ir rep utatio ns, a nd d isc ipl ini ng t

he m . Thea dm ini stratio n
25sol ic ite d R OCs on G owski a nd Za ch ari ah , in struc te d ot he r em plo y ee s to e nc oura ge the doc tors to re sig n, a

nd a tte m pte d to m al ign

the m in front o f the ir pe ers a

nd c oworke rs. Th is s ch em e wa s vi sib le to oth er h ospi ta l st aff in the ir da y -to-da y work in t he uni ts, as wa s th e tol l i t t ook on Go wskiand Za ch ari ah pe rsona lly
. And t his sc he m e wa s bo th s ev ere and p erva siv e. The re wa s te sti m ony tha t the ret al iatory

int ent wa s we ll-kn own a

nd c ont inu ed

ove r a p eri od o f y ea

rs. Gowski a nd Za ch ari ah

we re t arge te d wi th a

c am pa ign to force the m

to res ign by limiti ng t he ir priv ile ge s a

nd t he ir a cc es s to pos iti ons wit hin the hos pit al . The y we re re m ove d from

c om m itt ee s a nd p roje ct s, pro hib ite d from c ondu ct ingres ea

rch,
rea ssi gne d to diffe rent

wa rds, a nd g ive n lo w profic ie nc y

rat ing s. Ot

he r doc tors te sti fie d to the sc he m e, wit h so m e ad

m itt ingtha

t t he y we re a fraid

to te sti fy for fea r of ret al iatio n. An d a lth ough it did not de te r Gowski a

nd Za ch ari ah

from fili ng co m pla int s, s ev era l ot

he r sta ff m em

be rs te sti fie d th at

the y c hosenot

to file EEO cl ai m s out of fe ar. In li ght of th is e vid en ce , we a gree tha t t he e vid en cewa s su ffici ent t o su pport the jury 's ve rdic t on

the ret al iatory

hos til e work e nvi ronm ent c la im
. C. Injun ct ive Re lie f

“ The purpo se of Ti tleVII rel ie f is t o ‘ m ak e whol e’ vic tim s of u nla wful dis cri minatio n.” Vir

go v . Riv ie ra B ea ch Ass oc s., Lt d. , 30 F.3d 13 50, 1 363 (11th

26Ci r. 1994 ) (inte rnalquo tatio n m arks om itt ed). The sta tut e ve sts “broa d e qui ta

ble dis cre tio n” in a fede ralc ourt t o fa shi on t he “ m ost c om ple te rel ie f poss ibl e. ” Id. The inj unc tiv e rel ie f he re i nc lud ed : (1) p rohib iti ng a ny ret al iatory

pra ct ic es ; (2) prev entin g th e Sec ret ary from ta kin g a ny dis cipli na

ry a ction a ga ins t t he doc tors for thre e y ea

rs, un le ss a

pprove d by

ind ep en de nt re vie w; (3) o rderi ng t he VA st aff to p art ic ipate in dis cri m inatio n works hops ; (4) re m ovi ng o f the doc tors’ dis cipli na ry file s a nd p reve nti ng t

he ir us e in a

ny furthe r dis cipli na

ry a ction ; (5) orde ring t

hat t he doc tors be a

ppoi nte d to a ddi tio na l ho spi ta l c om mitt ee s; (6) orde ring t

hat Go wskibe pla ce d ba ck on t he rota tio n for duty

a ssi gnm ents a

nd be pe rm itt ed

to obt ai n th e ne ce ssa

ry c rede nti al s a

nd p rivil eg es to do s o; a

nd (7) orde ring t hat Za ch ari ah

be pe rm itt ed

to co nti nue he r rese arc h. The Sec ret ary

c ont en ds, a

nd we a gree , th at

no i nju nc tiv e rel ie f is a

va ila ble whe n a de fend ant pre va ils in a m ixe d-m oti ve ret al iatio n c as e. Se e42 U .S.C. 2000 e-(g)(2)(B). Alt

houg h su ch

rel ie f woul d be ava ila

ble in a m ixe d-m oti ve dis cri minatio n c la im , ret al iatio n is not li ste d in the sta tut e ad dres sin g in

jun ct ive rel ie f for m ixe d-m oti ve c la im s. Thus , th e co urt he re wa s li m ite d in the rel ie f it c oul d fa shi on. W e ca nnot sa y that t he c ourt a buse d it s di sc ret ion

whe n it prohibit ed

any ret al iatory

pra ct ic es , ins truc te d th at

the ve rdic t be pos te d, p reve nte d th e Sec ret ary from ta kin g a ny
27dis cipli na

ry a ct ion a ga ins t t he doc tors for thre e y ea

rs unl es s a

pprove d by ind ep en de nt re vie w, a

nd o rdere d VA a dm ini stratio n a nd s ta ff to pa

rtic ipate in dis cri minatio n works hops . Thi s re lie f rela te s di rec tly

to the hos til e work
environm ent a

nd s ch em e to re ta lia

te a ga ins t t

he doc tors. The rem ai nin g re lie f orde red by the c ourt i s a

c los er c al l, a s it

rel at es to the dis cre te ins ta

nc es of ret al iatio n for whi ch the jury a ppl ie d th e sam e-de ci sio n de fens e. Alt

houg h we c onc lud ed

tha t t he jury c oul d c onsi de r dis cre te a ct s a s pa rt of thehos til e work e nvi ronm ent, t hosedis cre tea ct s c an

not be rem ed ie d du e to t

he
m ixe d-m oti ve inv olv ed
. Se e42 U .S.C. § 20 00e -5(g)(2)(B). Ac co rding ly , we 1 3
va ca te in pa rt th e inj unc tiv e aw ard. D. TheDoc tors’ Ne w Tria l M oti on W e ex amine jury

ins truc tio ns a s a

whol e to d et ermine whe the r the y fai rly
an d a de quate ly

a ddre sse d th e iss ue and c orrec tly sta te d th e la w. Ch ris top he r v . Cu tte r Lab. , 53 F.3d 11 84, 1 190 (11th Ci r. 1995 ). “ Jury

ins truc tio ns m

ust be put in c ont ext; we c onsi de r the a lle gatio ns o f the c om pla int , th e ev ide nc e pres ente d,
an d th e argu

m ents o f co unse l wh en

de te rm ini ng wh et

he r the jury

und ers too d th e iss ue s or wa s misl ed .” Id. at 11 90-91. “ The purpo se of ju ry ins truc tio ns i s to giv e the jury a c le ar a nd c onc ise sta

te m ent of t

he la w a ppl ic ab le to the fac ts o f the c as e. ” We disagree with the plaintiff-a ppellants that Gowski ca

n be re assigned to MI CU as 1 3 part of c o-plaintiff Claudia Cote’s r emedy . Cote’s reme dies are not before us in this appeal. 28Id. at

119 4 (int erna l c ita

tio n omitt ed . “ If the re i s no ba sis in the rec ord for th e ins truc tio n gi ve n, su ch

e rror m ay

rai se a sub sta nti aland i ne radi ca

bledou bt a s to whe the r the jury

wa s prop erl y

gui de d in it s de lib eratio ns, a

nd re ve rsa l m ay

be requ ire d.” Id. (ci tatio n a

nd i nte rnalquo tatio n m arks om itt ed). “ If the tot al ity of the ins truc tio ns p rope rly

e xpre ss t he la w a ppl ic ab leto the c as e, the re i s no e rror ev en tho ugh an

iso late d c la

use m ay be ina cc urat e, am

biguous , in co m

ple te or oth erwi se sub

je ct to cri tic ism .” Id. (int erna l qu otatio n m arks and c ita tio n omitt ed). Co nsi de ring t

he rec ord a s a

whol e, we se e no re ve rsibl e error i n th e jury ins truc tio ns. The ins truc tio ns i ndi ca te d th e jury

wa s to c onsi de r one or m ore 1 4
ac tio ns, a nd t he c ourt l ist ed

e ac h a lle gatio n of re ta lia tio n for th e jury

to co nsi de r. W e pres um e a jury

foll ows i ts i nst

ruct ion s. W

ilb ur v . C orr. Se rv s. C orp. , 393 F.3d 1192 , 120 1 (11t

h C ir. 20 04). Ad dit ion al ly , bot h pa rtie s in c los ingargum ents
remind ed the jury tha t i t c oul d c onsi de r ea ch

sepa rat e ac t i n th e ret al ia

tio n c la im
. The jury ’s answe rs to the int erroga torie s on the ve rdic t form

we re c onsi ste nt w ith
ea ch oth er a nd wi th t he ve rdic t a s a

whol e. Thi s is not

a c as e in whic h th e jury rend ere d in co nsi ste nt v erdi ct s. Se eFed . R . C iv. P. 49 (a ddre ssi ng i nc onsi ste nc ie s

We note that the ver dict form mirror ed the f orm reque sted by

the plaintiff doctor s, 1 4 arguably rende ringany

err or her e invited. In re Carbon Dioxide I ndus. Antitrust

Liti g. , 229 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (“ It is a car dinal rule of a ppellate r eview that a par ty may not challeng e as e rror

a rulingor other trial proce edinginvited by that party .” (inter

nal quotation marks and c itation omit ted)). 29in g en era l a

nd s pe ci alve rdic ts); se e als o W ilb ur , 393 F.3d at 12 00-02 (des cribin g a ca se in whic h th e jury

found in favo r of the de fend ant on the pla int iff’s c la im s of ha ras sm ent a

nd re ta lia tio n but ne ve rthe le ss a

warded the plaint iff dam ag es ). Ac co rding ly , th e dis tric t c ourt p rope rly de nie d th e doc tors’ m oti on for a ne w tria l. VI. C onc lus ion For the foreg oin g re as ons, we a ffirm the dis tric t c ourt’ s de nia l of t he m oti on for jud gm ent a s a

m at te r of la w a nd for a ne w trial, t

he remitt itu

r, theva ca

tur of t he los t-wa ge s a

ward, a nd t he award of atto rney s’ fee s. W e al so a ffirm in pa rt th e grant of i nju

nc tiv e rel ie f, but

rem an d in

pa rt th e inj unc tiv e aw ard wit h in struc tio ns for the dis tric t c ourt t o st

rike the award a s it

pe rta ins to the rem ova l of t he doc tors’ dis cipli na ry file s a nd t he pre ve nti on o f the ir us e in a ny furthe r dis cipli na

ry a ct ion ; the orde r that t

he doc tors be a

ppoi nte d to a ddi tio na l ho spi ta l c om m itt ee s; t he orde r that Go wskibe pla ce d ba ck on t he rotatio n for duty

a ssi gnm ents a

nd b e pe rm itt ed to o bta in t

he ne ce ssa

ry c rede nti al s a

nd p rivil eg es to do s o; a

nd t he orde r that Za ch ari ah be pe rm itt ed

to co nti nue he r rese arc h. AFFIRM ED in par t, VACAT ED and REMANDE D in par t.

30