## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 1214 B EL I NDA E GAN, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. F R E E DO M B ANK, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No . 3:09 CV50013

— Phi li p G . Rei nhar d, Judg e.
A RG UE D M AY 28, 2010

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 6, 2011

Befor e M A NI ON, W I L L I A MS, a nd H AMIL T ON, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . Only seve n m onths after Fr eedom Bank r ecr uit ed Bel i nd a Egan to ser ve as one ofi ts vi ce pr esi dents, the bank fi re d he r. She had no per f or m ance i ssues , n o att endance pro bl em s, and no c om pla i nts a gainst her. W hat s he di d h av e, though, was dinnersho rt l y a fter she b ega n w i th a m em bero fthe bank’ s boar d ofdi re cto rs . T he board m em ber told he r th e fan tasies he h ad abou t her, an d s he de cl i ne d hi s adv an ce s. Eg anc o m pl aine d t o the2 N o. 10

- 1214 bank’ s Hu m an Reso urces o ffi certhatthe boar d m em ber h ad s exual l y har ass ed her, and the boar d m em berr esigned

. Shortly after th at, the p erson nam ed as the ba nk ’s new pre si dent to l d i ts then- pr es id en t that he hear d Egan ha d do ne so m ethi ng th at sh e sh o ul d ha ve be en fi r ed for. A nd about tw o m onths after the new presi dent as su m ed office, Eg an w as fi red

. A j ury m ight cred it th e ban k’s sta nce that the new presi dent el i m i nated E ga n’s posi ti on si m plyto r educe i neffi ci enci es. Or i t m i ght agr ee w i th Egan that the b ank t er m i nated her in ret al i ati on fo r her cl ai m o f se xua l ha r as sment
. W e co nc l ude th at th e co nfl i ct i ng i nfe re nces that can be drawn fr om the re cor d requi re a re soluti on bya j ury. There f or e, we re ver se the e ntryo f s u mma r y j u d g me n ta g a i n s tE g a n o n h e r r e t a l i a t i o nc l a i m.

I . B AC KGR OUND A s th is app eal com es to us from the en try of su m m ary j u d g me n ta g a i n s th e r, we r e c o u n tth e n a r r a t i v e th a tf o l l o ws byv i ewi nga l lf ac ts i n the r eco r d a nd dr awi nga l lr ea so nab l e i nfer en ce s i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to Eg an . Z era n te v. D eLuca , 5 55 F
. 3d 58 2, 5 84 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)

. Greg De m p se y, th en the pres i dent ofFr eedom Bank, contacte d Bel i nd a E gan i n the spri ng of2007 about a p o s i t i o n a tthe ban k

. He a l r e a d y kn e w E g a n, a s th e t wo had w or ked to gether at a di ffer en t bank. Egan ac cepted Fr eedom Bank’ s o ffer t o beco m e i ts vi ce pr esi dent of re tai lbank i ng and beg an working the re o n J uly17, 20 07. Egan m et Don Bu rt on , a m em bero fthe bank’ s bo ar d of d i r e c t o r s , d u r i n gh e r fi r s tw e e ko n th e j o b

. B u r t o n c a me i nto the bank w hen he w as onsi te f or a boar d m ee ting,N o. 10

- 1214 3 and Egan ask ed hi s o pini on about chal l enges Fr eedom f ac ed i n a pa r ti cul armar k et
. The y a g r ee d t o conti nue th ei r c o nv er sa ti o n a wee kl ate r o ve r the l unc h h o ur at A pp l ebee ’ s. A fterthatm eet i ng, E gan s aw Burto n sev er al ti m es o ver th e ens ui ngmonths whenhe woul d o cc as i o na l l y s t op in the b a nk

. T he y a g r e e d t o me e ta g a i n o n S e ptem ber13 , 20 07, and Burton a ske d her, “Do y ou want to mee ta t m y p l a c e o r s o mewh e r e e l s e ? ” Eg a n na med a re sta urant. They m et ther e at about 4: 00 p. m . , an d Burto n gave Egan feedbacko n a docum ent s he had r equeste d th a th e r e v i e w. E gan saw Bu rton aga in w he n sh e atten d ed a ban k board m eet i ng o n Se ptem ber18 , 20 07. Burto n cal l ed herthat w eekand sai d he w an ted to m eetwith he r to disc uss her m eet i ng with Larr y Henson , t h e CE O ofFr eedom Bank’s pare nt co rpor ati on, and theyag re ed to m ee t a t a r est auranti n the m i d afternoon o fS eptem ber20 , 20 07. Tha t day, Bur to n an d Ega n di sc us se d he r m eeti ng wi t h He n s o n, a n d B u r t o n t o l d E g a n th a th e h a d r e c o mm en ded to the b o ar d tha t th eyc o ns i derhe r t o b e th e next pre si dent ofFr eedom Bank. Burto n al so sai d that th e bo ar d o fdi r ectors ha d the po wert o fi r e th e bank’ s se n iorm anage m ent t eam , wh i ch cause d Egan to feeluncom f or tabl e. The co nver sat i on di d not o nl y invol ve w or k m att er s, however

. Burto n to l d Egan t h at he f antasi zed about m aking l ove to her on a da n c e floor and wa nt e d t o t a k e h e r t o La s V e g a s a nd o the r pl aces ar ound the worl d. Egan decl i ned hi s advances, and Burto n r epl i ed, “ I fy o u c ha ng e y o ur m ind , I ’ l lb e ho m e al o ne n ex t Tu es d ay .” W an tin g to lea ve , E ga n se c r e t l y to ld her h u sband to te l ephone her, and, wh en the cal lcam e, she a nsw er ed and i nfo rm ed Burton s he nee ded to l eave .4 N o. 10

- 1214 Ega n t o l d he r fr i en d S he i l a D em p se y whatha d t r an s p i r e d a n d a s k e d h e r n o t t o t e l l h e r h u s b a n d G r e g De mpse y, the pr esi d en t o fF r ee do m Ba nka t th e ti m e. The ne xt day, S he i l a apo logi zed a nd tol d Eg antha t sh e had i nfo rm ed herhusband w hat ha d happened. Egan and G re g Dem psey then di scusse d her conve rs ati on w i th Burto n. On Septe m ber24, 20 07, E gan c om pla i ned to the b ank’ s v i ce pr esi dent ofH u m an Reso urces , R ick M ineck, abou t w ha t B urt on h ad said to he r at dinn er. M i neck opened an inv es ti gat i on into Egan’s co m pla i nt. Befo re M i neck coul d i nter vi ew Burto n, Bur ton re si gned fro m the bank’ s bo ar d ofdi re cto rs . M in ec k sent Egan a l ett ero n Octobe r 2, 20 07 sta ti ng that he had i nvest i gat ed Egan’s c om pla i nt and thatact i on had bee n tak en to preve nt a re occur re nce of a si m i l ar i nci dent. The letter als o s ta te d th at n o a d ve rs e a c tio n or re ta liat ion w ou ld occur a s a res ulto fthe com pla i nt and thati fshe bel i eve d sh e was the s ubj ec t o fa dve r se a ct i o n o r r etalia ti o n, s he sho uld i mm e di a t e l y c o nt a c tLa r r y He ns o n, the CE O o fF r ee do m Ba nk ’ s par en t co r po r at i o n. Greg Dem psey w as tran siti oni ng o ut o fhi s r ol e a s ban k pres iden t aroun d this tim e. D ave B araj as, J r. w as ult i m ate l y hi re d t o re pla ce hi m . H enso n tol d E gan that she had be en a candidate forthe presi dent posi ti on b ut thatano therper son had been cho sen, and he sa id that if s he was w i l l i ng to co m m i t the ti m e, he was wi l l i ngt o fund h erc o urs es i n a g r adua te s ch o o lb an k i ng p r o g r a m. Baraj as and Gre g Dem psey had v ar i ous conve rs ati ons as Bar aj as was c o ns i der ed f o r a nd prep ared to b ec o m e ba nkN o. 10

- 1214 5 pr es i den t. In a co nv er sa ti o n cr i ti ca lt o thi s ca se , a cc o r di ng to Dem psey, duri ng S eptem bero r ear l y Octobero f 20 07, B ar ajas tol d him thathe ha d heard Egan “ had d one som ethi ng that she shoul d hav e been fi re d for.” D em p sey believed Ba raj as w as re ferring to Ega n’s re portt hat Burto n sai d i napp ro pri ate thi ngs t o her ove r dinner

. Baraj as denie s m aking t he st ate m ent t o Dem psey. Bar aj as o ffi ci al l y b eg ana s pr es i den t o fF r eedom Ba nk inea rly D ec em b er o f 2 00 7. E ga n ’s re sp on sib ilitie s in itia lly i ncre ase d because Baraj as re l i ed on herf orday- to- day oper ati ons as he l earned the j ob , b u t s he sa i d he r efused to m eetw ith h er abo ut pl ans forthe future. Baraj as di d m ee t wi tho th er s r egardi ngthe futur e, tho ug h, a nd he hi re d fo ur new em plo yee s ove r the ne xt se ver al mon ths

. He hi r e d Ri c ha r d M c Co r mi c k i n J a nu a r y of20 08 as v i c e pr e s i de nt o f pr i v a t e b a nk i ng, Pa m T o pp e r to s e r v e a s v i c e p r e s i d e nto fc o r p o r a t e s e r v i c e s , A my Y ou n g t o a ss ist M c C or m ick an d th en lat er to h an d le d aily bra nch m anage m ent duti es, and Lyl e S p aul ding as a c om m er c ial len d er . On Febr uary22 , 20 08, Ba raj as wrote a l ett erto Egan advi si ng her that he had deci ded to el i m i nate the pos i ti on o fv i ce pr es i dent o f r et ai lb an k i ng, Eg an ’ s po si ti o n. The l ett erga ve no r eas on f orthi s d ec ision. Egan fi l ed su it a l l eging r eta l i ati on, a host i l e workenvi ro nm ent, and discr i m i nati on o n the basi s o fherse x. The di str i ct co ur t en te r ed su m m ar y j udgm en t ag ains t Ega n, a nd she a pp eal s.6 N o. 10

- 1214 II. A N A L Y S IS A

. Sum m ar y J ud gm ent Rul i ngs W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t de no vo , a nd w e vi ew a l lf ac ts a nd dr aw a l lr ea so nabl e infe re nces ther efro m i n the l igh t m ostf avo rabl e t o Egan, the nonm oving par ty. See P oe rv. As t r ue, 60 6 F
. 3d 43 3, 4 38

- 39 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)

. S um m ar y j udg m en t is on ly a p p ro p ria te w h en th e p lea d in gs , d isc ov er y m at er ials, dis c losu res, an d affidav its dem ons trate th at th ere i s no ge nuine i ssue as to any m ate ri al f act and that the m oving par ty i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m at te r of law . Fed

. R
. C i v . P. 56 (a); s e eal s o Ce l ot ex Corp. v. C atre tt, 477 U
. S. 317, 322-23 (1986 ). T itle V II m ak es it u n law fu l fo r an e m p loy er to d isc rim inate aga i nst a n em plo yee fo r opposi ng a pract i ce that T itle V II forb id s. 42 U .S.C . § 2 0 00 e-3 ; P o er, 60 6 F

. 3d at 439. A pl ai nti ffm ay proce ed und erei therthe dir ect ori nd i re ct m etho d to prove herclaim o fr eta l i ati on invio lat ion of T itle V II. P o er, 6 06 F
. 3d at4 39
. To proce ed und erthe dir ect m etho d as Egan does here , a pl aint i ffmustsho w th r o ug h ei th erdi r ec t o r c i r cumst an ti alev i dence that( 1) she engaged in st atuto ri l y pr otect ed acti vi ty; ( 2) s h e suffer ed an adver se acti on t ake n by the e m plo yer ; and (3 ) t h er e was a causalco nnecti on b et w ee n th e t w o. Id. at 439. I f the pla i nti ff’s e vid ence o fr e t a l i a t o r y a ni mus i s c o nt r a di c t e d, [T]he c as e m us t be t r i ed unl es s th e defen dan t prese nts unrebu tt ed ev i dence thati t would have ta ken the a dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n a g ains t th e p lai nt iff an yw ay, “in w hich even t th e d efend an t’sN o. 10

- 1214 7

re tal i atorym oti ve, ev en i funchal l enged, was not a b u t-fo r c au se of th e p lain tiff’s h ar m .” Haywood v

. Lu ce ntTe ch s . , Inc . , 32 3 F
. 3d 524, 53 1 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 3) ( quoti ng St one v. Ci ty of Indianap olis Pub. U t i l s . D i v. , 281 F.3d 640 , 642 (7th C ir. 2002)). The parti es agr ee that Egan’s co m p laint to her H um an R es ou rc es d ep ar tm ent t hat Burto n had sexual l y har ass ed herco nsti tutes st atuto ri l y prot ecte d ac tiv ity
. See 42 U
. S. C. § 2 000e-3( a)

. I t i s a l so cl ear th at term ination con stitut es an a d verse a ct i o n. Haywood, 323 F. 3d at 531. The i ssue, then, i s w h et her Ega n h as i nt r o duce d s uffi ci en t ev i den ce fr o m w hich a j ury coul d find thatther e is a causalco nnecti on b et w ee n h er p ro te c t ed ac tiv ity an d h er firin g. See Ande rs on v. Libe rty Lobby, Inc
. , 47 7 U.S

. 24 2, 24 9 ( 1986 ) ( “at the sum m ar y j ud gm ent sta ge the j ud ge’ s fun c tio n i s no t him selft o wei g h the e vi den ce a nd de te r m i ne th e t ru th of t h e m at te r b u t t o d et er m in e w h et h er th er e is a gen uin e issue for tri al”). F r ee do m Ba nkmai nt ai ns tha t Bar aj as a nd the bank si m plym ade a busi ness deci si on t o el i m i nate Egan’s posi ti on, and that her fi ring was not m oti vate d i n any w ay by her hara ssm ent c om pla i nt. Baraj as tes ti fi ed i n hi s deposi ti on that Egan’ s t ask s were du pli cat i v e o ftho s e p e r f o r med b y a no the r e mpl o y e e , a nd that f orthatr eas on, a busi n es s deci si on was m ade to eli m in ate E gan ’s position. C ons istent w ith B araj as’s p os itio n, H en so n te st ified th at h e a n d B ar ajas p ar tic ipated i n dis cussi ons evaluati ng the b ank’ s e nti re o rg ani zati o na ls tructur e. Hen so n s ta te d tha t th e ba nkwas l o sing8 N o. 10

- 1214

m oney, so i ts l eader s were at tem pti ng to m ake busi ness dec i si o ns a s to ho w be stt o pr o ce ed to de ve l o p the bank w i th a str ucture th at ensure d i ts profi tabi l i ty go in g for w ar d . A s p ar t o f th at rev iew , H en so n sa id the deci sio n w as m ade to el i m i nate the m i dd l e m anage m ent posi ti on Egan occupi ed at the ti m e. H enso n also s ta ted thatatl eas t o ne o therposi ti on had bee n eli m inated since th e d ecision w as m ad e to eli m inate E gan ’s p os itio n . W i th r espectto the new hi re s, H enso n tes ti fi ed that he had sp eci fi c d i scussi ons w i th B ar aj as bef or e Bar aj as w as hired reg ard ing new peo p le that h e m ight w an t to hire and w hat t h eir r ol es m i ght b e. In part i cul ar, H enso n sa i d the y di sc us se d M cCo r m i ck, who m F r ee do m Ba nk had been t ry i ng t o re crui t fora yea r ortwo. They a l so disc ussed Pam Topper, wh o l i ke M cCorm i ck w or ked at a d ifferent ba nk w he r e Ba raj as ha d served as a director, an d the y d is cus se d a thi r d pe r so n a s wel l

. The bank ther ef or e t ake s t h e posi ti on that these new hi re s w er e no t inconsi ste nt with its d eci si on t o ter m i nate Egan’s em plo ym ent. T he ban k’s exp lanation i s p lausible, bu t on su m m ary j ud g men t, “ the c o ur th a s o ne t a s ka nd o ne t a s ko nl y: to deci de, bas ed on the ev i dence o fr eco rd, wh ether ther e i s any m ate ri aldi spute o ff act that re quir es tr i al

. ” Wal dr i dgev. Am
. Hoe ch s tCorp. , 24 F. 3d 918, 92 0 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 4)

. Al th o ug h a j ur y m ighta g r ee wi ththe bank that i t e l i m i nated Egan’ s pos i ti on f oreffic i ency a nd o pe r a t i o na lr e a s o ns , the r e i s a l s o s uffi c i e nte v i dence i n the re c or d , vi ew ed i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o EganN o. 10

- 1214 9

as w e m u st, from w h i c h a re as on ab le jur y c ou ld concl ud e that the b ank instea d fi re d Egan because sh e co m pl aine d s he had been se xua l l y ha r as se d b y o ne of the bank’ s est eem ed boar d m em ber s. N ot ably, G reg D em p sey asse rts tha t B araj as told h im he h eard Egan “had done s om ethi ng she sho uld have bee n fi re d fo r. ” Altho ugh the bank ar gu es that the r efer ence inth e s ta te m en t is am b igu ou s, ce rt ain ly on e re as on a b le c on c lu sio n th at ca n b e d r aw n from th e c om m en t is that Baraj as w as re fer enci ng Egan’ s co m pla i nt that Bu rt on had sexual l y haras sed h er . Indeed, thatwas the concl usi on De mps e y d r e w. T h a tc o n c l u s i o n n e e d n o te v e n b e t he onl y r eas onabl e c onclusi on that co uld be drawn to su r vi ve s um m ar y j udg m en t; e ve n s o , the r e i s no othe r expla nati on sugge ste d b y the r eco rd f orwh at Baraj as coul d be r efer enci ng. There ar e o ther f acto rs a j ury coul d wei gh i n Egan’s f avo r as w el l

. A j ury m i ght a l so consi der th at E ga n ’ s pos i ti on w as th e o n ly on e t h e b an k e lim in at ed in 2 00 8. It c ou ld al so l oo k t o the f act that al though the bankm ai ntai ned that fi nanci alco ns id er ati ons w er e o ne r eas on f or the deci sio n to el i m i nate Egan’s posi ti on, i t no nethel ess hi re d fou r other perso ns i n the fi rs t few m onths of Baraj as’ s t enure. A nd Egan had no perf or m ance i ssues . I n shor t, Egan’ s cl ai m thatthe bank re ta li ate d against h e r a nd e l i mi n a t e d h e r p o s i t i o n b e c a u s e s h e c o mpla i ned ofse xual hara ssm en t a re “no t s o i ncre dibl e o r im p lau sib le .

. . th at a rea so n ab le j u ry c ou ld n o t fi n d in [ her] favo r. ” Kodish v. O akbrookTerrace Fire P rot. D is t. , 60 4 F
. 3d 49 0, 5 07( 7th C i r . 2 01 0)

. W e th er efo r e r ev er se the g r a n to fs u mma r y j u d g me n to n E g a n ’ s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m.10 N o. 10

- 1214 Egan al so m ake s per functor y arg u m ents i n herbr i ef that her host i l e w or k envi ro nm ent and gender disc ri m i natio n cla im s s h ou ld p ro c ee d to t r i a l

. T h e sin gle verba l p rop ositi on in th is cas e b y a m em ber of the board of d ire c to rs d oe s n o t r i s e t o th e le ve l of a h os tile w or k e n vir on m en t, h ow ev er . S e eBe r ry v. Ch i
. Transit Aut h. , 6 18 F. 3d 688, 69 1- 92 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( com m ents m us t be severe or p ervasive to create a hos tile w o rk en vi r o nm en t). The b an k ’ s hi r e o fa mal e as i ts pr es i den t i nstea d ofEgan does notcr eat e a tr i abl e i ssue that it discrim inated against h er on th e basis of her gen d er, as s he do es no t d evelop a ny a r g um en t as t o why sh e w as sim ilar ly q u alifie d

. Se e Bode ns t ab v. County of Cook, 569 F. 3d 6 51 , 6 58 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( i ssues notdevel oped i n an o pening b rie f a re waive d). S um m ar y j ud gm ent o n the ho sti l e workenvi ro nm ent a nd ge nd erdi scr i m i nati on claim s w as p rop er.

B
. M agistrate Jud ge’s Ord ers Egan al so w i shes to chal l enge or ders enter ed by a m ag ist ra te j ud ge on N ove m ber6, 20 09 and Ja nuary 5, 2010

. The l att er or der dir ecte d Egan to pay the defendants $4 ,815. The o rderal so sta ted i t would s et a t i m e by w hich the am ou nt m us t be p aid after th e d istri ct cou rt d ecid ed the d efend an ts’ pen d ing m otion for su m m ary j u d gm ent. Both par ti es chara cter i ze the o rder s a s s ancti ons or ders. Th e d istri ct c ourtgr anted the defendants’ m oti on f or sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n Jan u ary 1 1, 20 10 and enter ed j ud g men ttha tda y . T he di s t r i c tc o ur tma de n o menti onN o. 10

- 1214 11 ofthe m agi str ate o rder s, nor h ad Egan o bj ecte d to th em. S he m aint ains s he di d no t o bj ec t be ca us e th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s j udg m en t was ent er ed be f o r e th e f o ur te en day ti m e peri od to obj ect to the m agi str ate ’ s latest o r d e r h ad ru n . See F e d

. R
. C i v . P
. 7 2
. T o d a t e , n o t i me ha s b e e n s e tb y whi c h the a t t o r ne y s ’ fe e s mus tb e p a i d, no r ha s th e di st rict co ur t co ns i der ed th e pr o pr i ety o fthe a wa r d. The defe n dants m ai ntai n w e l ack j uri sdic ti on t o c o n s i d e r th e ma g i s t r a t e ’ s o r d e r s , a n d th e y a r e c o r r e c t
. We fi rs t note that our j uri sdic ti on ove r th e substanti ve ap p e a l w as cle ar . Se eBudi ni ch v. Be ct on D i ck i ns on and Co. , 486 U

. S. 196, 200-01 (1988 ); H o ube n v . Te l ul ar Corp
. , 23 1 F

. 3d 1066 , 10 71 ( 7th Cir. 2 000)

. W i th r espect to the m agi str ate o rder s, ther e i s a n i ni ti alquesti on a s t o w h et h er th er e is e v e n a fin al or d er , as t h e la st ord er d id no t se t a ti m e bywhi chthe fee s wer e to b e pai d a nd i nstea d stat ed that a t i m e would be se t a t a lat erdate. SeeSh apo v. En gle, 463 F. 3d 641, 643 ( 7th Cir

. 2006 ) ( describi ng test f orfi nal i ty as w hetherthe j ud ge has fini shed w i th the c ase )

. M or e i m port antl y her e, the parti es had not conse nted to pro ceed be f or e a m agi stra te j ud ge und er 28 U
. S. C. § 636( c)

. I n the absence o fa conse nt, a m agi str ate j ud g e ma y o nly r e c o mm e nd a s a nc t i o ns di s po s i t i on to the di st r i ctc o ur t, an d o nl y the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dec i si o ns a re rev iew ab le in th e a p p ella te co u rt
. S e eDi r e ct v, Inc . v. Bar cz e wski, 604 F.3d 100 4, 10 1 1 (7th C ir. 2010); Alpe r n v . Lieb , 3 8 F .3d 93 3, 93 6 (7 th C ir. 19 94 ); see also K ing v. Ionization Inte rn. , Inc. , 8 2 5 F
. 2d 1180, 1185 (7th C ir. 1987 ) ( “The onl y par t o fthe sta tu te that express l y a uthoriz es th e m ag ist ra te to en te r a fin al jud gm en t a p p e a l a b le12 N o. 10

- 1214 d irectly to the cou rt of ap p eals i s 28 U
. S. C

. § 636(c ).”). W e ther ef or e l ack j uri sdic ti on ove r the chal l enge s E gan wo ul d l i k e t o ma k e t o the ma g i s t r a t e ’ s o r de r s . Onr e man d, the di str i ct c ourtwil lhave th e opportunity t o consi der th e o rd er s, see Al pern , 3 8 F
. 3d at9 36 , a l o ngwi ththe de fen d an ts’ argum en ts th at E gan f ail ed to obj ect to th e orde rs in a ti m ely m an ne r.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The j ud gm ent o fthe dis tr i ct c ourti s R EV ER S ED an d th is case i s R EMA NDE D f orfurther proce edi ngs consi ste nt with th i s o pi ni o n.

10- 6- 11