The Honorable R. L eon Jordan, Uni t ed S t at es District Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Tenne ssee, sitting by

designation. NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR F UL L
- T E XT P UB L I CA T I ON

Fi l e N ame: 09a0514n. 06 N o. 08- 5285 UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT KE E F E AL S OB RO OK, J AY A I RV I N, ) J I M M Y J EN K I N S, a nd H ER M A N LEW I S, ) ) Pl a i n t i f f s - App e l l a n t s , ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT v . ) COURT F OR THE WES TE RN ) DI STRI CT O F TENNESSEE U P S G R O U N D F R E IG H T , IN C ., ) a V i r gi ni a C orpor at i on, ) ) D efe ndant
- A ppel l ee. )
B efor e: C L A Y and R O G E R S, C i r cui tJ udges ; J O R D A N , D i s t r i ctJ udge. *

LE ON J ORDAN , Di s t r i c tJ u d g e . Ke e f e Al s o b r o o k , J a yA. I r v i n , J i mmy Je n k in s, a n d H e rm a n L e w is (c o llec tiv e ly“ a p p e llan ts” o r “ p la in tiff s” ) a p p e a l pro se f

r o m a j ur yver di cti n favorof t hei rempl oy er , U PS G r ound Fr ei ght , I nc. ( “U PS”)
. For t he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e AF F I RM th e d istric t co u rt. I.

A ppel l ant s fi l ed thei rcompl ai nti n t he di s t r i ctcou r tbycouns el , al l egi ng t hat U P S su b jec ted th e m to d isp a ra te tre a tm e n t, reta liat io n , a n d a h o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t in
v io la tio n o f

4 2 U .S
. C
. § 1 9 8 1 a n d T itle 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 . §The c ompl ai ntwa s fi l edaga i n s tap p el l ant s ’ th en -c urr entemp l o yer, Overnite Transportation 1 Company (“O vernite” ). Upon the pa rties’ subsequent joint m otion, UPS wa s s ub s t i tuted as defendant followingits acquisition of Overnite. 2 2000e et s eq. I n m at er i al par t , appel l ant s all eg ed thatt heyw er e r et al i at ed aga i ns tt hr ough 1 i nti m i dati on , i ncreased res po nsi bil i t i es, and un desi rabl e w ork assi gn m ents .

T he di s t r i ct cour t gr ant ed i n par tand deni ed i n par tU PS’s s um m aryj udgm ent
m ot i on. C or r ect l yci t i ng t he “r eas onabl e empl oy ee w oul d have found t he cha l l enged a ct i on
m at er i al l yadver s e” s t andar d of B u rlin g to n N o rth e rn & Sa n ta Fe R a ilw a y v . W h ite , 54 8 U. S. 53, 68 ( 2006) , t he di s t r i ct cour t r el i ed on t he affi davi t of each pl ai nt i ff i n fi ndi ng a genui ne is s u e o f m a te ri a l f

a c t p re c lu d in g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e re ta lia tio n c la im s . A ppel l ant s w er e r epr es ent ed bycouns el fr om t he i ni t i at i on of t hei rs ui tt hr ough t he concl us i on of t he t en- day j ur y t r i al
. A t t r i al , t he di s t r i ct cour t gr ant ed i n par tand deni ed i n p art U P S’ s m ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . T he ca s e w entt o t he j ur yon t he ret al i at i on and ho st i l e w ork env i ronm ent cl ai m s.

I n contr as tt o t he l aw corr ect l yappl i ed i n i t s s um m ary jud g m entrul i ng, t he di s t r i ctcour t char ged t he j ur y i n per t i nent par t t hat eac h pl ai nt i ff “musts how t hathe s uffe r ed a mat er i al l yadver s e cha nge in the ter m s orcondi t i ons of empl oy m entbeca us e of the
em p loy er’s ac ti o n s. ” T h is retali ati o n stan d ard w as spe cifica ll y rejected b ythe S u p rem e C o u rt i n B url i ng t on N

orthern . P o st- B url i ng t on N orthern , a pl ai nt i ff now i ns t ead “ m us ts how t hat
a re a so n a b le e m p lo y e e w o u ld h a v e f o u n d th e c h a llen g e d a c tio n m a ter iallya d v e rse , w h ich in t hi s cont extm eans i tw el l m i ghthave di ssu ad ed a reas onabl e w or kerfr om m aki ng or3

s uppor t i ng a cha r ge of di s cr i m i nati o n . ” Bu r l i n g t o n N. , 548 U
. S. at68, 70 ( ci t at i on and q u o ta tio n o m itte d ).

T he j ur y r etur ned a defe ns e ver di ct on al l cl ai m s . Fol l ow i ng t r i al , t he pl ai nt i ffs f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l pro se . II. A p p e llan ts h a v e n o t p ro v id e d u s w ith a trial tra n sc rip t. W e h a v e b e f o re u s o n ly t he tr ans cr i ptof the cha r ge conf er ence and the j ur yi ns t ruct i ons , as s ubm i t t ed byt he appe l l ee. W hi l e a p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e i r “ c o u n s e l i n f o r me d Th e Di s t r i c t Cou r t t h a t s h e wan t ed t he
n e w l a w [ B url i ng t on N

orthern ] appl i ed, ” t hat cont ent i on i s w hol l y uns uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. T he ava i l abl e tr ans cr i pti ns t ead makes cl eart hatt her e w as no obj ect i on m ade t o t he err oneous
c h a rg e . T h e re f

o re , o u r re v ie w is f

o r p la in e rr o r. See F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 1 (d )(2 ); B ath & Body W or ks v. Luzi erP ers onal iz ed C os m et i cs , 7 6 F
. 3 d 7 4 3 , 7 5 0 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 6 ).

Pl ai n err or i s a “ver y hi gh s t andar d, ” M aday v. P ubl i c Li br ar i es of Sagi naw , 480 F .3 d 8 1 5 , 8 2 0 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), a n d o u r r e v ie w is d is c re tio n a ry. See Fed. R
. C i v. P 5 1( d) ( 2) (“ A c o u rt m ay cons i dera pl ai n err ori n t he i ns t ruct ion s that h as notbeen pr es er ved .
. . . ”) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); P ucke t tv. U ni t ed Stat es , 129 S. C t . 1423, 1429 ( 2009)
. “[W ] e exa m i ne the p roc ee d ing s in the iren ti retyin the li g h t of the p roo fs a t tri al, to d eterm ine w h ethe r the e rrors aff ect ed subst ant i al r i ght s . ” Ru s h v . I l l
. Ce n t . R. R. , 399 F. 3d 705, 715 ( 6t h C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i on, quot at i on, an d i nt ernal al t er at i on om i t t ed)
. A ppel l ant s beart he bur den of
e s ta b lis h in g p la in e rr o r. U ni t ed St at es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 4 (1 9 9 3 ); Fr uge v. P enr od4

D r i l l i ng C o. , 91 8 F
. 2d 11 63 , 11 69 (5th C i r. 19 90 ) ( “P l ai n err or r equ i res t hat pl ai nti ff est abli sh th e c h a llen g e d in stru c tio n w a s a n in c o rre c t s tate m e n t o f th e law a n d w a s p ro b a b lyre sp o n sib le fo r an inco rrect ve rdict, lead ing to su b stan ti al i n justi ce . ”). III . T h e a d v iso ryc o m m itt e e n o tes to th e 2 0 0 3 a m e n d m e n ts t o F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 51 pr ovi de, T he court ' s dut yt o gi ve corr ectj ur yi ns t ruct i ons i n a ci vi l act i on i s s haped by atl eastfou r fact ors. T he fa ct orm os t di r ect l y i m pl i ed bya “pl ai n” err orrul e i s t he obvi ous nes s of the m i s t ake
. Th e i mpo r t a n c e o f t h e e r r o r i s a s e c o n d ma j o r f a c t o r . Th e cos t s of corr ect i ng an err orr efl ecta thi r d fac t ort hati s aff ect ed bya v ari etyof ci r cumst ance s . I n a cas e t hats eems c l os e t o t he funda m ent al err orl i ne, acc ount al so m aybe taken o f t he im pact a verdi ctm ayhav e on no np art i es. F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 1 a d v iso ry c o m m itt e e ’s n o te (2 0 0 3 ). T h e n o tes f u rth e r su g g e st th a t th e p lain
e rr o r s ta n d a rd is le s s lik e ly to b e m e t in c iv il c a s e s th a n in c ri m in a l c a s e s . I d. ( quot i ng U

ni t ed St at es v. A tki ns on , 2 9 7 U .S . 1 5 7 , 1 6 0 (1 9 3 6 )) (“ In e x c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n c e s, e sp e c iallyin crim inal ca ses, ap p ell ate c o u rt s, in the p u b li c intere st, m ay , o f th eir ow n m o ti o n , n o ti ce erro rs to w h ich n o ex ce p ti o n h as b ee n take n . . . . ”).

In the p rese n t ca se, th e erro r b elow w as o b v iou s. H o w ev er, on the re co rd b ef o re
us w e ca nnotdet er m i ne the degr ee of i m por t ance of thaterr orbeca us e w i t houta tr i al t r ans cr i ptw e ca nnotas s es s t he s t r ength of the pl ai nt i ffs ’ pr oof. W e pre s um e thatt he pl ai nt i ffs offe r ed s o me e v id e n c e o n th e ir re talia tio n c laim s. O th e rw ise th e d istric t co u rt like lyw o u ld
n o th a v e d e n i e d t h e mo t i o n f o rj u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w.5 N onethel es s , w e fi nd veryl i t t l e i ns i ghtas t o t he s t r ength orfocus of thatpr oof. T h e p lain tiff

s p re su m a b lytes tifie d a t trial, b u t w e h a v e n o re c o rd o f th e c o n ten t o r c re d ib ili ty of t hatt es t i m ony . I ti s t he appe l l ant s ’ dut y t o pr ovi de us w i t h t hos e por t i ons of the tr ans cr i pt
w h ic h th e yd e e m n e c e s s a ry a n d re le v a n t to th e iris s u e s o n a p p e a l. See Fe d. R. A pp . P. 1 0 (b )(1)(A ), (2). Sim il arly , w h il e the p lai n ti ff s su p p o rt ed their op p o sit ion to su m m ary ju d g m e n t w ith th e a f

f id a v its o f se v e ra l c o w o rk e rs, w ith o u t a trial tra n sc rip t w e a re lef t o n ly t o s pecul at e w hetherany of t hos e per s ons actual l y t es t i fi ed, and w hatt he val ue of a nys uch test im o n ym igh t hav e b ee n . W e a lso n o te t h at du ri n g the ch arg e c o n fe ren ce , the d istri ct co u rt d e s c ri b e d th is c a s e a s “ [ c ]e rt a in ly n o t th e m o s t e g re g io u s c a s e w e h a v e h a d a t a ll . . . .”

In order for us t o co nclude t hat the err on eou s charge i m pacted t he ap pell ants ’
s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , i t i s t he appel l ant s w ho “must demonst r at e t hati t‘ aff ect ed the out come of t he di s t r i ctcour tpr ocee di ngs . ’ ” P u c ke tt , 129 S. C t . at1429 ( quot i ng O l ano , 5 0 7 U
. S
. at 73 4 ). T hi s i s not a cas e w i t h a cl ear i ndi cat i on t hat t he j ur y ’ s ver di ctw as r el at ed t o t he cha l l enged in s tr u c tio n . C

f
. R eynolds v. G r een , 184 F. 3d 589, 595 ( 6t h C i r . 1999) ( j ur or s as ked ques t i ons di r ect l yr el at i ng t o err oneous ver di ctfor m )
. T he pr es entappel l ant s ’ “ca s e i s nots o s t r ong t hat
w e can s ay t hat had i t not been for an err oneous i ns t ruct i on [they ] w oul d s ur el yhave pr evai l ed att r i al
. ” Mesm an v. C rane P ro Servs. , 5 1 2 F .3 d 3 5 2 , 3 5 7 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ).

A d d iti o n a lly , “ ‘th e c o sts o f c o rre c tin g a n e rro r’ .
. . is an im p o rta n t f a c to r in th is
cas e. ” I d. ( quot i ng Fed. R
. C i v. P. 51 advi s or ycomm i t t ee’ s not e ( 2003) )
. W e ar e r el uct ant t o r equi r e t he di s t r i ct cour t t o r edo a t w o- w eek tr i al i n t hi s ci vi l cas e bec aus e of a s i ngl e err or6

i n t he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons . C ons i der abl e publ i c r es our ces have a l r eadybeen de vot ed t o r es ol vi ng th is c iv il su it. W e a re a lso re lu c tan t to re q u ire U P S , w h ich p ro p o se d a c o rre c t B ur l i ngt on N orthern in stru c tio n to th e d istric t co u rt, t o d e f e n d a n o th e r tw o -w e e k trial. T he appe l l ant s have s i m pl yfai l ed t o m eet t hei r bur den of demonst r at i ng t hatt he
err orbel ow s er i ous l yaff ect ed the fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , o r p ubl i c r eput at i on of thi s j udi ci al p r o c e e d i n g . W e a r e m i n d f u l t h a tf i l i n g s b y pro se li t i gant s ar e ent i t l ed t o a l i ber al
co n stru cti o n . Ha h n v. St arB ank , 190 F. 3d 708, 715 ( 6t h C i r . 1999)
. T hat“l es s s t r i ngent
s t andar d, ” how ever , does notent i t l e pro se p arti es to su cc ee d o n the m ere b asis o f c o n clus o ry
a lle g a tio n s a n d f

u tile c l a i m s . Id
. O n the app el l at e record befo re us, w e decli ne to exerci se
o u r d isc re tio n to g ra n t a p lain e rro r re v e rsa l. I V. A ppel l ant s ’ r emai ni ng ar gum ent s w arr antl i t t l e di s cus s i on. A ppel l ant s as k us t o “di s bar ” the di s t r i ctj udge and theycont end that , due to t he s t r ength of thei revi dence ( w hi ch, agai n, t heyhave notbr oughtbefor e us i n t he r ecor d on appea l ) and the

“ in c o m p e te n c y ” o f

th e irtr ia l c o u n s e l, w e s h o u ld “ re v ie w th is c a s e f o r a ll e rr o r.” W e do notr evi ew cas es for“al l err or . ” R ather , w e cons i der onl y t hos e i s s ues p ro p e rl ya n d s p e c if

i c a l l y b r o u g h t b e f

o re u s , a n d a ll o th e r i s s u e s a re d e e m e d w a iv e d
. See H ol l on v. C om m ’ rof

Soc. Sec. , 4 4 7 F .3 d 4 7 7 , 4 9 1 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); McPhers on v. Kel s ey , 125 F. 3d 989, 995- 96 ( 6t h C i r . 1997) Fur t her , “I t i s w el l
- s et t l ed thatt her e i s no cons t i tut i onal or sta tu to ryrig h t to e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l in a c iv il c a se . . . . T h u s, liti g a n ts in a c iv il7

pr ocee di ng m ay not at t ack a n adver s e j udgement on t he gr ounds of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of
c o u n s e l. . . . I n s te a d , th e a p p ro p ri a te re m e d yis a m a lp ra c tic e a c tio n a g a in s t th e a tto rn e y .” A dam s v. V

i dor , 1 2 F . A p p ’x 3 1 7 , 3 1 9 (6 th C ir. Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). L a stly , this
cou rtdo es not address t he “d i sbarm ent” of dis t ri ctj ud ges.

T her efor e, fort he r eas ons pr ovi ded her ei n, w e AF F I RM t h e j u ryv e r d i c tb e l o w.8

C LA Y , C i r c ui t Judg e , d i s s e nt i ng . T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s fa il u re to instruc t th e jury
corr ect l yw i t h r es pectt o a cr i t i cal el ement of Pl ai nt i ffs ’ r et al i at i on cl ai m w arr ant s r ever s al and
r emand fora new t r i al on t he i s s ue of w hether D efe ndantr et al i at ed aga i ns tPl ai nt i ffs forfi l i ng compl ai nt s of rac e di s cr i m i nat i on. A l t hough t he maj or i t yacknow l edges t hatt he di s t r i ct
c o u rt’s in e x p lica b le e rro r i n in stru c tin g th e ju ryw a s “ o b v io u s,” it n o n e th e les s “ d e c lin e [ s]” to
e x e rc ise th is C o u rt’s d isc re tio n to re v e rse f o r p lain e rro r. B e c a u se I d isa g re e , I re sp e c tf u lly di s s entfr om t he maj or i t y ’ s deci s i on on t hi s i s s ue. T he di s t r i ctcour tbelow p rese nt ed the j ur yw i t h an i ncorr ectl egal s t andar d for eval uat i ng w hetherPl ai nt i ffs exper i ence d an adverse em pl oy m entact i on forpurpos es of P lain tiff s’ r e talia tio n c laim . In in stru c tin g th e ju ry , the d istric t co u r t s ta ted th a t, i n o rd e r to est ab li sh the exi s t ence of an a dver s e empl oy m entact i on, Pl ai nt i ffs had t o s how t hatt hey “s uffe r ed a m at er i al l yadver s e cha nge i n t he t er m s orcondi t i ons of empl oy m entbeca us e of t he em p loy er ’ s act i ons . ” ( J ur yI ns t ruct i ons T r . 29. ) I tt hen pr ovi ded exa m pl es of a “mat erial l yadver s e cha nge”— t er m i nat i on, demot i on, l os s of bene fi t s , ordi m i ni s hed
r es pons i bi l i t y
— al l of w hi ch w er e “ul t i m at e empl oy m ent deci s i ons ” r el at ed t o t he t er m s and
c o n d itio n s o f

e m p lo ym e n t. Ho we v e r , t h e S u p r e me Co u r t h a s r e j e c t e d a t e s tt h a tl i mi t s a c t i o n a b l e r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i ms t o cas es i n w hi ch the empl oy ee s uffe r ed an “ul t i m at e empl oy m entdeci s i on. ” Bu r l i n g t o n N. & S a n te F e Ry . C o . v. W h ite , 5 4 8 U .S . 5 3 , 6 7 (2 0 0 6 ). I n s te a d , “a p lain tiff m u st s h o w th a t a
re a so n a b le e m p lo y e e w o u ld h a v e f o u n d th e c h a llen g e d a c tio n m a ter iallya d v e rse , ‘w h ich in9

t hi s cont extm eans i tw el l m i ghthav e d issua d ed a r eas onabl e w or kerfr om m aki ng or
s uppor t ing a char ge of di s cr i m i nat i on. ’ ” Id
. at68 ( quot i ng R ochon v. G onz al es , 438 F. 3d 1211, 1219 ( D
. C
. C i r . 2006) )
. T he C our tt hus m ade cl ear t hat , i n t he cont extof a r et al i at i on
cas e, a j ur yi s “notr equi r ed t o fi nd that the chal l enged a ct i ons [a] r e r el at ed t o t he t er m s or condi t i ons of empl oym ent . ” Id . a t 7 0
. C ons equent l y , t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur y . M or eover , att he t i m e the d i s t r i c tc o u r ti n s t ru c t e d t h e j u r y , t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d h a d b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d b yt h e S u p r e me C our ti n W

h ite , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s e rr o r t h e re f o re w a s p la in a n d o b v io u s . See a l so Long
v. H ow ar d U ni v. , 5 5 0 F .3 d 2 1 , 2 6 (D .C . C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (n o tin g th a t, i n th e c o n tex t o f R u le 5 1 (d )( 2 ), t h e w o rd “ p la in ” is “ s yn o n ym o u s w ith ‘c le a r’ o r, e q u iv a le n tly, ‘o b v io u s ’” ). Al t h o u g h t h e ma

j o r i t yd o e s n o td i s a g r e e wi t h t h e a b o v e a n a l y s i s , i tn o n e t h e l e s s a l l o ws th e d istric t c o u rt’s m ista k e to g o u n c o rre c ted
. T h e m a jo rity su g g e sts th a t th e c o sts th a t w o u ld
resu ltfro m co rrecti n g the error i n this ca se w eigh ag ains t rev ersing the j u ry v erd ict
. H o w ev er, t he co m m i t t ee no t es t o R ule 51 up on w hich t he m aj ori t yrel i es m ake cleart hat the o bv i ou sness
an d im p o rt an ce o f th e e rror w eigh m o re h ea v il yin d eterm ining w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt ’s
erro r w arran ts r ev ersa l i n the civil co n text. F o r th at m att er, i t i s n o t evid en t from the re co rd that the tri al on rem an d w o u ld b e a s len g thyas th e o ri g in a l tr ia l. T h e e rron eo u s jury instruction related o n lyto P lai n ti ff s’ retal iat io n claim , n o t Plainti ff s’ claim s tha t th eyw ere
s u b je c te d to ra c ia lly m o tiv a te d h a ra s s m e n t th a t c re a te d a h o s tile w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t.10

H er e, t he obvi ous nes s of t he m i s t ake— “[t ] he fa ct orm os tdi r ect l yi m pl i ed bya ‘ pl ai n’
err orrul e, ” Fed. R
. C i v. P. 51( d) ( 2) , advi s or ycomm i t t ee not e— w ei ghs heavi l yi n fa v o rof fi ndi ng pl ai n err or . A s di s cus s ed above , t he err orw as pl ai n— t he di s t r i ctcour t i ns t ruct ed the j ur y i n a mannercontr aryt o a r ece nt , cl ear , and contr ol l i ng Supr eme C our tcas e. Fur t her , “a
s econd m aj or fac t or ” i n addr es s i ng pl ai n err or i s “[t ] he i m por t ance of t he err or . ” I n t hi s cas e, t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s err o r i n i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur yw as s i gni fi cant . T he i ns t ruct i on r el at ed t o a

“ c o re is s u e in th e c a s e ”

— w h e th e r th e P la in tif f s s u f f e re d a n a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . See R eynolds v. G r een , 184 F. 3d 589, 595 ( 6t h C i r . 1999) ( pr ovi di ng, undert he pr i orpl ai n- err or
s t andar d, t hat t he i ns t ruct i on m us t r el at e t o a “c or e i s s ue”)
. B as ed on the i ns t ruct i ons t hatt he dis t ri ctcou rtgav e, t he jur ycou l d n ot hav e f o u n d thatP l ai nti ffs suffered an adv ers e empl oy m entact i on— a key el ement of t hei r r et al i at i on cl ai m . T he adve r s e empl oy m entact i on for m i ng t he bas i s of t he r et al i at i on cl ai m t hat w ent t o t he j ur yw as t hatPl ai nt i ffs w er e deni ed
cert ai n t r ai ni ng oppor tun it ies , and r ece i ved more di ffi cul tw or k as s i gnm ent s . T hus , t he al l eged a dver s e em pl oym ent act i on di d notcome w i t hi n t he s t andar d t hatt he courtpr ovi ded t o t h e j u r y— D e f

e n d a n td i d n o tt e r m i n a t e P l a i n t i f f s , n o rd i d D e f

e n d a n tr e d u c e t h e i rp a y,
r e s p o n s ib ilities , o r b e n e f its. T h e ju ryn e v e r c o n sid e re d w h e th e r D e f e n d a n t’s a c tio n s in
as s i gni ng Pl ai nt i ffs m or e di ffi cul t w or k “mi ght di s s uade a r eas onabl e w or ker ” fr om m aki ng
a c la im o f

ra c ia l d is c ri m in a tio n . S e e W h ite , 5 4 8 U .S
. a t 6 8
. A c c o rd in g ly , the e rro r w a s p lain and pr ej udi ced Pl ai nt i ffs , w arr ant i ng r ever s al under t he pl ai n- err or s t andar d. A s a r es ul tof t he di s t r i c tc ou r t ’ s l e ga l l yde fi c i e nti ns t ruc t i on s t o the j uryon a n i s s ue c r i t i c a l t o Pl ai nti ffs’11

cl ai m s , t he j ur yw as eff ect i vel yfor ecl os ed fr om det er m i ni ng w hether Pl ai nt i ffs s houl d have p r e v a i l e d o n t h e i rr e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. In vi ew of the i m po rt ance o f t he ad verse e m ploym ent act i on i ssue t o P l ai nti ffs’
r et al i at i on cl ai m , and the fa ct t hatt he adve r s e empl oy m entact i on for m i ng t he bas i s of Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m w as notpr oper l ys etfor t h by t he err oneous s t andar d pr ovi ded by t he di s t r i ct
c o u rt, I w o u ld re m a n d f o r a n e w trial o n th e iss u e o f re talia ti o n . I th e re f

o re re sp e c tf

u lly d iss e n t.