## 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 os. 08- 1114, 08

- 1128 , 09

- 2253 , 09

- 2266 , 09- 3142 and 09- 3292 M ARKS ERAF I NN, P la intif f-A pp ellee/ C ross -App el lant, v.

L OCAL72 2, I NT ERNAT I ONALB ROT H E R H OO D OF T EAM STERS, C HA UF FEU RS, W AREHOUS EMEN AND H ELP ERS OF A MERI CA, D ef endant-Appellant/ C ross-A pp ellee, an d

S TEVENM ONGA N a nd J OI NTC O UN CIL 65 OF T HE I NT ERNAT I ONALB R OT H E R H OO D OF T EAM STERS, I NT ERNAT I ONALU NI ON, D ef endants / C ross-A pp ellees.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 03 C9409

—V irgin ia M . Ken dall, Judge .
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 8, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 12, 20102 N os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. Befo re B AUER, E VANSa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . B A U ER, Cir cu i tJudg e . M ar k S er afi nn sued hi s l oca l unio n and the j oi nt co uncilco m p ris ing l eader s fro m h i s a n d o th e r r e g i o n a l l o c a l s . He c l a i me d th a tth e y i mp a i r e d h i s fr e e s p e e c h a n d a s s e mb l y r i g h t s , fi n e d h i m, an d s us pen ded hi s uni o n mem bershi p wi th o utdue pr o ce ss , i n v i o l at i o n o fthe Labor M an ag ementRe po r ting an d Di sc l o su r e Act ( “LM R DA ”) ( al so kno wn as the Land rum - Gri ffi n A ct) , 29 U
. S. C. §§ 401 et seq
. The di st r i ct co ur t g r an te d su m m ar y j udg m en t to th e j o i nt c ou n c il, but a j ury rul ed aga i nst the l oca l i n f avo r of S er afi nn. The l oca lappeal s i ts l osing j ury ver dict, ar gui ng tha t the d i str i ct c ourter re d i n denyi ng i t a m i xed-m oti ve j ury i nstr ucti on, i n i nstr ucti ng the j ury to consi der wi tn es s Ti m o th y Cr ai g ’ s te st i m o ny abouthi s DU Ic o nvi ct i o n f o r i m pea ch m en t pur po se s o nl y, and i n i ns tr uct i ng th e j ur y no t to c o ns i derthe c o r r ec tn es s o f th e j o i nt c o un c i l ’ s fi nd i ngtha th e h a d v i o l a t e d the u ni o n’ s wo r kreferralrules. Serafi nn cross-ap p eals the d istri ct cou rt’s den i al o f hi s m o ti o n f o r r el i ef fr o m hi s su m m ar y -j udg m en t l o ss a g ains t th e j o i ntc o unc i l a nd i ts red uc ti o n o fthe at to rn ey s’ fe es aw ar d h e w on ag ain st th e loc al. W e h ave r ev i ewe d, f o r a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n, f o ur pr es er ve d c ha l l en g es ( a fi fthc ha l l en g e was w ai ve d) t o the d istri ct cou rt’s ruli ng s. Find ing no p rej ud ici al err or, we a ffi r m.N os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. 3 I . B AC KGR OUND The I nter nati onalBro ther hood o fTeam ste rs is a l abor uni o n c o m p risi ng1
. 4 m i l l i o n mem be r s, r an g i ngi n o cc upati on “ f r o m a i r l i ne pil ots to zo oke epers . ” See ht tp : //www

. te amst er . o r g / co nt en t/ team sters-stru ctu re ( vi si te d Fe b. 16 , 2 01 0)

. Ea chmem be r b el o ng s to o ne ofse ver alhun d red l oca l uni ons that m ai ntai n substa nti al in d ep en d en c e fro m th e in te rn at ion al or ga n iza tio n . In re gi ons w i th thre e or m or e l oca l s, j oi nt co uncil s o f l eader s fro m th os e local s a re se t up to “hel p sol ve probl em s a nd d eci de so m e j uri sdic ti onaland j ud i ci al m att er s. ” Id. The Team ste rs f ora D em ocr ati c Un i on ( “TD U ”) i s a “we l l

- k no wn an d na ti o na l l y a ct i ve di ssi den t f ac ti o n” com pri si ng thousands ofTeam ste rs . A pp el l ee’ s Br. at6; seeh t t p : //w w w . td u.org/w how eare (visi ted Feb. 16, 2010). I n ess ence, the TD U fu n cti ons as a r ank- and-fi l e pol i ti cal partywithi n the in ternati onalo rg ani zati on, o pp ose d to th e a d m in ist ra tio n cu rre n tly led by Jam e s P . H offa

. See A pp el l ee’ s Br. at7. M ar k S er afi nn, a TD U m em ber, se rv ed thr ee ter m s a s pr esi dent ofh i s l o c a l u ni o n, u nt i l h e l o s tt o Ho ff a s up p or te r S t e v e n M on ga n in 2 00 1. Se ra fin n als o los t h is b id f orvi ce pr esi dent ofhi s r egi on’ s j oi nt co unc i l, co m posed sol el y of H off a supp or ter s and l ed by presi d en t K eith G lea so n . W h at h ap p en ed n ex t f or m s t h e n at u re of th is dispute. A s Serafi nn tell s the story, his TD U p oli tics w ere m ore than H off a s up port er s co uld be ar . M onga n and Gle ason co l l ude d t o ha ve the l o ca l uni o n a nd j o i ntc o unc i l b r i ng4 N os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. in te rn al d isc ip lin ar y c h ar ge s a ga in st Ser afin n so lely because he m et w i th l oca l uni on e xecuti ves and pu bl i shed a ne w sle tt er acc usi ng M onga n ofcr onyi sm , dum bness, and supp re ssi on o ffre e s peech. Thei r charg es that he vi ol ate d uni on rul es by re fer ring hi m sel f to a c oveted po we r pl a nt j o b a he a d o f o the r s o n the r e fe rr al l i st w ere un even ly ap p li ed , becau s e H off a su p p orters ro uti nel y b ro ke the r efer ra l r ule s t o re w ar d thei r cro ni es w i th l ucrat i ve w or k without co n se q uence, and base l ess , because he vi si ted the j ob si te onl y forunpaid tr ai ni ng. M o ng anha d t o l d l o cal uni o n mem be r s no t to s ho w up atthe j o b si te j us t so th at Se r afi nn co ul d b e bl amed. The peopl e a h ea d of hi m o n the re fer ra l l i st w er e no t e ven el i gibl e be cause they w er e a l re ady working el sewhere, an d tw o of th em , i nc lud ing Tim oth y C raig, w ere furtherbar re d fro m com pla i ni ng be cause they f ai l ed to sh ow u p a t th e po werpl an t. The j o i ntc o unc i l ’ s he ar i ng and rev i ew o f charges thatS er afi nn vi ol ate d the r efer ra l r ul es was a pr ej udg i ngk an g ar o o c o ur t. The pr es i di ng offi cerGle aso n w as bi ase d a gai nst S er afi nn and had col l ud ed w i th M onga n to br i ng the char ges . M onga n to l d l o ca l uni o n mem be r s to t es ti fy f al se l y b efo r e th e j o i nt co unc i l, o r e l se the y woul d l o se th ei r j o bs

. The j o i ntc o unci l ’ s o rderthatS er afin n p ay re sti tuti on a nd be suspend ed f ro m the unio n f or si x m onths unj ustl y p en ali zed S er afi nn an d c hi l l ed uni o n s pee ch

. A s the l o c a l u ni o n a nd j o i ntc o un c i l t e l l the st or y, S er afi nn’ s r ul e-br ea k i ngg r ee d was mor e t ha n a ny o ne coul d bear

. S er afi nn assi gned hi m sel fto w or k, not tr ai ni ng, and eve n i fhe a ssi gned him sel fto tr ai ni ng, that al so vi ol ate d the r efer ra l r ule s. Refer ra l

- el i gibl e,N os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. 5 vi cti m i zed co w or ker s in t h e lo calwh o shoul d have g ot the powe r pla nt j ob

— not M onga n and Glea son

—br o ug ht th e c h ar ge s a ga in st Ser afin n . T h e loc al re fer re d th e d isc ipli narypro ceedi ng to the j oi nt cou n c il o nl y b ecause a m aj o r i tyo fo ffi ce r s who woul d hav e pr es i ded atthe l o ca l were al so wi tn es se s. S er afi nn at te nde d the he ar i ng and was pe r m i tt ed to i nt r o duce e vi den ce , t es ti fy, a nd c ro ss -ex am in e w itn es se s. G lea so n p re sid ed im p ar tia lly an d i n ac co r dan ce wi th o r di na r y r ul es o f ev i den ce and pr o ce dur e. The pa ne l di sc i pl i ne d S er afi nn b ec au se he deser ved i t. The deci si on had nothi ng t o d o w i th Se ra fi nn’s pol i ti cs o r exer ci se offre e sp eech. The workre fe r r a l r ul e s a pp l i e d e qu a l l y t o e v e r y o ne , e s pe c i a l l y t o Se r afi nn who was i n a uni que l ea der sh i p po si ti o n a t th e ti m e a s l am e- du ck presi dent. The di st r i ctcou r t awar ded su m m ar y j udg m en t to the j o i ntc o unc i l

. I t f o und tha t S er afi nn pr o vi ded i ns uffi cie nt ev id ence f ora j ury to fi nd thatthe j oi nt co uncilwas i nvol ved in bri ngi ng the di sci pli narychar ges ag ai nst Sera finn, o r that the j oi nt co uncilaff or ded S er afi nn anyth in g ot h er th an a fu ll an d fair h ea rin g. Serafinn v. Int’l Bhd. of Te am s t e rs , Lo ca l U ni on N o. 72 2 , N o. 03 C 9 409, 20 07 W L 16703 60, at * *8, 13 (N

. D
. I ll

. J un e 5, 2007 ). Bu t the di str i ct c ourtden ied t h e l oca l ’ s m oti on f or sum m ar y j ud gm ent, so S er afi nn’s case agai nst the l oca l wentt o tr i al

. Be f o r e tr i al, S er afi nn pr o po se d a j ur y i nstr ucti on that w ou l d have r equi re d him to es tabl i sh th at r et al i at i o n was o nl y a “mot i va ting f ac to r ” in the loc al’s d ec isio n to p ro se c u te th e c h ar ge s a ga in st h im
. Id. at *7. I n resp ons e, th e local p rop osed a “m ixed -m otive” j ury6 N os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. instru ction p attern ed afte r M oun tHe al t hy City S ch ool D is tr ictB oard of Ed ucation v. D oyle, 429 U
. S. 274, 287 (1977 ). I n the propos ed i ns t r uc t i o n, the l oca l co nceded th at Ser afin n h ad th e in itia l bu rd en to sh o w th at h is ex ercise of free spee ch w as m erely “a m otivating fa c t o r” i n the l oca l ’ s deci si on t o pros ecute hi m , as S er afi nn re q u es te d

. Se r af

i nn , 20 0 7 W L 16703 60, at * 6. B ut i f th e j ury f ound that S er afinn m et hi s bur den, then the b urden of p ro of w oul d hav e shi fted to the l oca l to prove that it wou l d h a v e t a k e n th e s a me a c t i o n e v e n h a d S e r afi nn not exer ci sed hi s fre e s peech, ther eby avo i ding l i abi l i ty al tog ether( unli ke a typi calm i xed-m oti ve i nstr ucti on that l i m i ts but does noteras e a l l l i abi l i ty)

. The di str i ct co ur t r ej ec te d b o thpa r ti es ’ i ns tr uct i o ns , pr efer r i ng i nstea d a “but- f orcause ” i nstru c tion, wh i ch at al l ti m es k eptthe b ur deno n the pl aint i fft o pr o ve tha t th e l ocal p rosec uted hi m so l el y b ecause he e xerci sed hi s fre e spe ec h. To be gi n the tr i al, S er afi nn cal l ed Crai g a s a witnes s t o p rove that w hen Se ra fi nn w as at the pow er pla nt, Cr aig wa s i ne l i g ib l e t o wo r kthe r e b e c a us e h e f a i l e d t o s ho w u p. Cr ai gt es ti fi ed th athe di dn’ t sh o w up be ca use S er afi nn ha d call ed hi m a t ho m e an d t o l d hi m no t to
. S er afi nn re b u tt ed th at C ra ig’s ab se n c e w as d u e t o o n e o f h is thre e DU Ico nvi cti ons. S er afi nn al so ar gued tha t on e o f th e later DU Iconv ictions resu lted in a revoked driver’s lice n se but thatthe l oca l neve rthel ess co nti nued to r eferdr i ving - r el ated wo r kt o hi m , thus s uppo r ting Se ra fin n ’ s th eo ry th at C ra ig w as an ind ivid u al s im ilar ly sit u at ed to Ser afin n ag ain st w h om th e loc al s ele c tiv ely decl i ned to enf or ce the r efer ra l r u les. S er afi nn f ai l ed toN os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. 7 subm i t e vi dence showingthata n y of Crai g’ s DU Ico nvi ct i o n s w e r e fe l o n i e s o r i n v o l v e d a n a c t o f d i s h o n e s t y . At the c l ose o ftr i al, the dist ri ct c ourti nstr ucted t h e j u ryto consi der “ the e vid ence that Tim othyCrai g has bee n convi cted o fa cri m e . . . o nl y in d ec iding w hether Tim othyCrai g’ s t est i m ony i s tr uthfuli n w hol e, i n part, o r no t ata l l

. Yo u may no t co ns i derthi s ev i den ce fora ny ot h er p u rp os e.” Se r af

i nn , 20 07 W L 16703 60, at* 8. At the c l o se o ft r i al, the di st r i ctc o ur t al so issued the f o l l o wi ngi ns tr uct i o n: A nd I ’ m go i ng to r ead a l i m i ti ng i nstr uc tio n to yo u atthi s po i nt
. Ther e ha ve b ee n a numbe r o fdi sc us si o ns f ro m the w i tness st and and qu est i ons by these l aw yer s r ega rdi ng the char ges and the r eso l uti on o f th o se ch ar g es . And Ia m i ns tr uct i ngy o u tha t i n a se par at e pr o ce edinga uni o n b o dy, kno wn as the J oi nt Counci l 6 5, f ound that the pl ai nti ffvi ol ate d uni o n r efer r alpr ac ti ce s an d s us pen ded an d fi ne d the pla i nti ffas a re sul t. That was the unio n’s ro l e. W hether th e j oi nt co uncil ’ s deci si on was co rr ect i s no t a t i ss ue f o r you in t hi s ca se . Yo urr o l e i s to de te r m i ne w hetherthe defe nd ants bro ught those ch ar ges aga i nst S er afi nn i n re tal i ati on fo r hi s exerci se ofr i ghts prot ecte d und erthe l aw . You ar e no t s up posed to be r ev i ewi ngthe de ci si o n. A p p ell an t’s Rep ly at 9 (qu oting T r. of T rial, p. 668). A j ur y f ou nd the l o ca l l i ab l e to S er afi nn f o r r et al i at i ng ag ains t hi s ex er ci se o ffree s pee ch

. I t awar ded S er afi nn $50, 000 i n com pensato rydam age s and $55, 000 i n pun i ti ve dam age s.8 N os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. A fterwinni ng attr i al, Ser afin n m ove d fo r re l i effro m th e pr i o r a war d of su m m ar y j udg m en t f o r the j o i nt counci l o n the gr ound ofnewly disc ove re d evi dence add uced at tr i alag ai nst the l oca l. T he ev i dence co nsi ste d of Gleason ’s testim ony that w ithin th ree m ont hs before the j oi nt counci l br ought charg es aga i nst S er afi nn, Gle aso n ha d m etpr i va te l y wi thM ong an , ha d t el eph o ne d the i nt erna ti o na l o r g an i za ti o n, a nd ha d c o nducted a c o nferenc e call w ith the j oint cou nc il

. Th e d istri ct cou rt co ns i der ed th i s ev i den ce , fi ndi ngno th i ngne w to “ r ea so nab ly d em on st ra te [t h e jo in t c ou n c il’s] b ias or ro le in re tal i ati ng ag ai nst [ Se ra fi nn]. ” Id. at * 5. Se ra fin n ’ s a tto rney s s ubm i tte d a cl ai m to the dist ri ct c ou rtth at th eir tim e a n d e x p en se s t ot ale d $8 66 ,06 3 in th i s ca se a nd tha t th eys ho ul d b e awar ded as mu ch. The dist ri ct c ourt d ec i ded thatS er afi nn shoul d be a w ar ded att or neys’ fees , bu t it redu ced the cl ai m ed am ount t o $181 , 130 .2 0 , cons idering, am ong other th ings, the local’ s a b i l i t y t o p a y a n d th a t“ S e r a fi n n p r e va i l ed o n o n l y t wo of h is fou r c laim s a ga in st on ly on e o f th re e d efe n d an ts .” R. 36 5 a t 3
.
I I . DI S C US S I ON W e r evi ew f oran abuse ofd i scr eti on each o fthe parti es’ ch all en ges to th e d istri ct co u rt’s dec isi ons that w ere p re se rv ed : to n otgiv e a m ix ed -m ot ive j u ry ins tr u c tio n, see A lcala v. Em har t In dustr ie s, Inc. , 495 F.3d 360 , 363 (7th C ir. 2007 ) ( ci ti ng Spi l l e rv. Br ady, 169 F.3d 106 4, 1066 ( 7th Cir. 1999 )) , to gi ve a li m iti ng ins tru ction regard in g C raig’s te st im on y, s e ei d. , to den y rel ieffrom i ts gran t of su m m aryN os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. 9 j ud gm ent t o the j oi nt co unc il, see Gom ez v. Chody, 86 7 F
. 2d 39 5, 4 05 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 9) , a nd t o de te r m i ne the am ou n t o f th e a tt or n ey s’ fe es aw ar d

. Se eHe ns l ey v . E ck erha rt, 46 1 U.S

. 42 4, 43 7 ( 1983 )

. ( The l ocal ’ s chal l enge to th e l i m i tingi ns tr uct i o n r eg ar di ngthe j o i ntc o unc il ’s hear i ng was w ai ved. W e di scuss the s tan dard ofr evi ew to th at ch alle n ge lat er .) U n d er th e ab u se -of-d isc re tio n st an d ar d , “d efe re n c e . . . i s the hal l m ar k. ” G en. E lec. C o . v. Join er, 5 22 U
. S. 13 6, 14 3 (1997). H ow m uc h d eferenc e w e aff ord a d istrict cou rt’s exer ci se ofdi scr eti on va ri es i nd i re ctl y with the str i ctness o fl eg alr ul es g o ve r ni ngthe e xe r ci se . W he n r ul es , s ta ndards, and prece dents g ove rn, the d istr i ct c ourt ’ s di scr eti o n i s l i m i te d. W he n mul ti

- f ac tor b al an ci ngt es ts a nd com p lex fact-d eterm inations govern, the d istri ct cou rt’s d isc re tio n is gre at er . See U nite d State s v. A p p rox im ately 81,454 C ans of B aby Form ula , 560 F .3 d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 20 09 ); Call v. Am e r i t e ch Mgm t
. Pe ns i on Plan , 47 5 F.3 d 816, 82 2 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); M et lyn Realty Corp. v. E sm a rk, Inc. , 76 3 F.2d 826 , 831 (7th C ir. 1985).

A . M i xed- M ot i ve I nstructi on W e wi l l com e t o the na tu r e o fthe r ul e g o ve r ni ngthe di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni a l o fth e l o c a l ’ s p r o po s e d “ M t
. He al t hy

‘ m i xe d- m o ti ve ’ j ur y i ns tr uct i o n. ” Appel l an t’ s Br
. a t 2. But fi r stwe no te tha t th e l o ca l a ctua l l y a r g ue s f o r a b ur den

shi fti ng i nstructi on

— no t a m i xe d- m o ti ve i ns tr uct i o n. A m i xed-m oti ve i nstr ucti on, by d efiniti on, f ol l ows a pri ori nstr ucti on that per m i ts a pl ai nti ffto es tabl i sh10 N os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. li abili ty m erely by show ing t h at th e im p rop er cons iderat i o n was a “ m o ti va tingf ac to r ” o fthe de fen dan t’ s co nte st ed ac tio n . Federal Civil Jury Ins tr ucti ons of the Seventh C ir cuit 3.0 1 ( 2008 ) , cm t. c; s e eM t
. He al t hy, 42 9 U.S

. at28 7; see also D esert P a la ce, In c. v. C o sta, 539 U
. S. 90, 101 (2003 ); Pri ceWat e rho usev. Hopki ns , 490 U
. S. 228, 236-37 (1989 ); Goode n v . Ne al , 1 7F
. 3 d 9 25, 928 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 )

. A mi xe dm ot ive ins tr u c tio n t h en p er m its th e d efe n d an t t o lim it i ts l i ab i l i tyi fi t ca n pr o ve tha t i t woul d ha ve t ak enthe conte sted a cti on r ega rdl ess o fthe i m properco nsi deratio n . Se e, e . g. , M t
. He al t hy, 42 9 U.S

. at28 7. He r e the di s t r i c tc o ur tr ej e c t e d S e r a fi nn ’ s p r o posed m oti vating- f acto r i nstr ucti on, l eaving no m oti vatingf ac to r l i ab i l i tyt o l i m i t, s o the r e ca nno t ha ve b ee n the l i abi l i ty- l i m i ti ng m i xed-m oti ve i nstr ucti on that M t. He al t hy author i zes . I nstea d the di str i ct c ourti n str ucted the j ury that Se ra fi nn had to pr ove th at hi s e xerci se of f ree sp eech w as not m er el y a m oti vating f acto r, but a necess ar y c ondit i on o r a “ ‘ but- f or ’ cau se .” Se eGr os s v. F BL F i n . S e r vs . , In c. , 129 S.C t. 23 43 , 235 0 (2 00 9); see also U nite d State s v. Hatfi el d, 591 F.3d 945 , 948 (7th C ir. 2010). So th e local argu es in essen ce that th e d istri ct c o u rt s ho ul d h a v e s ub s ti tut e d both a m otivating-factor anda m i xed-m oti ve i nstr ucti on f orthe but- f or c au se i nstr ucti on th e di str i ct c ourtga ve. But the l oca l ’ s co m posi te instru ction w ou ld h ave been n ot only “longer” an d “m ore c om p lica te d ,” as th e d ist ric t c ou rtfou n d , S e r af i nn , 20 07 W L 16703 60, at* 7 ( ci ti ng Fe deral C i vi l Jury Ins t r uc t i ons of the Seventh C ir cuit 3. 01 , c m t. c ), b ut a l so di sa dva nt ag eo us to th e loca l if th e evid en c e w as in e q u ip ois e. C f. A p p ell an t’sN os. 08

- 1114, 08

- 1128, 09

- 2253, etal

. 11 Br. at31 ( “I t was obvi ousl y a cl ose cas e. ”)

. Both the but- f or cause i nstr ucti on a nd the l oca l ’ s pro posed co m po site instru ction sc ore com p le t e victory for the local i f a j ury fi nds tha t th e l o ca l woul d ha ve pr o se cut ed S er afi nn re gar dle ss ofhi s o utspoke n pol i ti cs. But w hereas the butf orcause in structi on m ai ntai ns the burden o fper suasi on on the pl ai nti ff, g i vi ng a ti e t o the l oca l, the l oca l ’ s pro posed co m posi te i nstr ucti on s hi fts the b urd en o fper suasi o n t o i ts el f, g i vinga t i e to S er afi nn. So w ha t w e are reall y review in g i s the district cou rt’s d ec isio n n otto alt er th e b u rd e n o fp er su as ion, w h ich it w as n otp er m it t e d t o d o m er ely be c au se of th e loc al’s illad vis ed req u es t. See G ross , 1 29 S

. Ct. a t 23 50

- 52 ( fi ndi ng that a s t a t ut e wi th l a ngua g e s i mi l a r t o the LMRDA d oes not perm it shifting of the bu rd en of p ersu a s io n). Th e di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s c r e t i o n wa s acco r di ng l y c o nfi ne d, and i t there f or e pr oper l y deni ed the l oca l ’ s pro posed m o ti va ting - f ac to r /m i xe d- m o ti ve c o m po si te i ns tr uct i o n. T he district cou rt also p rop erly d en ied Serafinn ’s m oti vating- f acto r i nstr ucti on. A m i xed-m oti ve theo ryo f l i abi l i ty i s nev erpr o peri n a s ui t br o ug htunde r the L M R D A , so a n y d isc re tio n th e d ist ric t c ou rtex er c ise d in denyi ng i nstr ucti ons supp or ti ve of a m i xed-m oti ve the o r y wa s thu s l i m i ted

. S o me c o ur t s h a v e f o un d mi xe dm ot ive th eo rie s o f liab ility p ro p er in L M R D A ca se s, see Sn yd er v. Fre ig ht, C o nstr., Gen . D rivers, Wa reho usem en, & He l p e rs , L o c a l No
. 2 87, 1 7 5 F. 3d 680, 685-86 (9th Cir. 1999); War i ng v. Int ’l L o ngsh or e m e n’s As s ’ n, Lo ca l 14 14 , 66 5 F
. S u p p . 1 5 7 6 , 1 5 8 3 ( S

. D
. Ga

. 1 9 8 7 ) , b u tth e S u p r e me Cou r t o ve r r ul ed th ei r a pproach l as t y ea r i n Gro s s v . F BL12 N os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. Financial Se rvic es, Inc. , 12 9 S

. Ct. at23 48, wh i ch applies r e t r oa c tiv ely to th is c as e. S e e Harp e r v . Va
. Dep ’ t of Taxat i on , 50 9 U.S

. 86 , 97(19 93)

. M i xed-m oti ve theo ri es of liabi l i ty ar e a l w ays i m properi n sui ts bro ught under s t a t ut e s wi tho utl a ngua g e c o mpa r a b l e t o the Ci v i l R i ghts A ct’s au th oriza tion of claim s tha t an im p rop er cons iderati on was “ a moti vat i ng f ac t or ” f o r the c o nt es te d a ct i o n. Id. at2 3 5 0 n .3 (em p h as is in orig in al); s e eSe r watka v. R ockw el l Autom ation, Inc. , 591 F.3d 957, 961 (7th C ir. 2010); F ai r l ey v. An dre ws , 578 F.3d 518 , 525-26 (7th C ir. 2009). T h e L M R D A co n ta in s n o s u c h co m p ar a b le lan gu ag e. It pr ovides, i n re l evantpart, that“[ i ] t s hal l be unlawfulf or any l aboro rg ani zati on . . . t o fi ne, suspend, expel, o r othe rwis e di sci pli ne any o fi ts m em ber s f ore xe r ci sing any r i ght t o w hi ch he i s e nti tl ed u n d er the prov i si ons of th is ch ap ter.” 29 U
. S. C

. § 529 (em p ha sis add ed ). Th e w ord “f or ” m eans “by re aso n of, ” 6 O xfo rd E ng lish D ictio na ry 2 5 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , a nd “ b e c a us e o f

. ” Id. ; Web st er ’s Th ir d New Int ’l D ictio na ry8 86 ( 19 81 )

. The se s ame de fi ni ti ons fr o m the LM R DA pe r su ade d the S upr eme Co ur t to fi nd tha t th e A ge Disc ri m i nati on i n Em plo ym ent Act’ s par al l el l anguage r equi re s that “ the pl ain tiff b ear s the bur den of persuas i on t o est abl i sh [ a] ‘ but-for ’ cause ” s uch that a m ix ed -m ot ive th eo ry of liab ility w ou ld be im p ro p er in an y c as e b ro u gh t u n d er th e s ta tu te
. G ross , 12 9 S. Ct. at23 50- 51. A nd thes e s am e defi ni ti ons parall el the j ury i nstr ucti on the di str i ct c ourtga ve i n thi s ca se. I n s um, the di s t r i c tc o ur t pr o pe r l y r ej e c t e d a mi xe dm oti ve theo ryo fl iab ili ty, i nstr ucti ons that w oul d have em b ra c ed su c h a th e o r y , an d an ins tr u c tio n th at w ou ldN os. 08

- 1114, 08

- 1128, 09

- 2253, etal

. 13 have i m perm i ssibl y s hi fted the burden o fpro ofaway f ro m the pla i nti ff

. I nstea d, i t pr ovi ded an instr ucti on that “whe n c o ns i dered i n [ i ts ] e nt i r ety a nd no t i n i so l at i o n, [w as ] su fficie n t to in for m th e j u ry of t h e a p p lica b le l aw . ” A lcala , 49 5 F
. 3d at 363.

B . L i mi t i ngI ns t ruc t i o n Re g a r di ngC r a i g’ s DUI C o nv i c t i o ns Th e l o c a l i s o n s t a b l e r g r o u n d i n c h a l l e n g i ng t he d istri ct cou rt’s l im iti ng i ns tru ction regard ing C raig’s m isd em ea n o r D U I con vic tio n s a s e rro n eo u s, b u t itfails b e c a us e i tc a nn o ts ho w pr ej ud i ce. T w o federa l r ule s o f evi denc e gove rn the adm i ssi on o fCrai g’ s m i sdem eanor DU Ico nvi cti ons. R u le 6 09 prohibi ts thei r adm i ssi on t o at ta ck Cr ai g ’ s “c ha r ac te r f o r t r uthful ne ss , ” F ed. R. E vid . 609 (a); se e U nite d State s v. P apia , 56 0 F
. 2d 827, 84 5 ( 7th Cir

. 19 77) , wh i l e Rul e 4 04 pe rm i ts thei r adm i ssi on f or “other pu rpos es, ” F ed. R. Evi d . 4 04(b) , i ncl ud i ng to at ta ckthe c r edibi l i tyo fa witnes s’ t es ti m o ny b y mean s othe r than at tack i ng the witnes s’ ge nera l char acte r f or tr uthful ness, wh i ch i s pro hibi ted byRule 60 9. S ee U nited St at e s v. Li nde m ann , 85 F. 3d 1232 , 12 43 (7 th Ci r. 19 96) (des cribing fi ve d ifferent w ays to im p each a w itnes s ). So ev i dence ofCraig ’ s co nvi cti ons w as adm i ssibl e, f or exam ple , to i m peach Crai g b y c ontr adic ti ng the substa nce o fhi s t est i m ony orsho w i ng tha t h e had an i m pai re d abi l i ty to re c all the e vent about w hi ch he was tes ti fyi ng. Id. H ad the d istri ct cou rt so l im it e d ev iden ce of Craig’s convi cti ons, we w oul d fi nd n o er ro r al though the i nstr uc-14 N os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. ti on l i m i ted ev i dence ofCrai g’ s s i ngul ar“cri m e, ” whereas th er e was e vi den ce tha t hi s cr i m es numbe r ed three

. The cour t f ound that a l l t h re e w er e r el evantto “whether [ Crai g] was eve n tr uthfulor abl e to re cal l, ” A pp . B
. at8, so i t do es not m at te r whi cho fthe thr ee DUI c o nv i ct i o ns th e i n st ru c tio n refe re n c ed . Th e firs t “ offe re d an en tir ely differ ent r eas on” f orCrai g’ s absence fro m the pow er pl an t f r o m the o ne he ha d g i ve n. Se r af i nn , 2 0 0 7WL 1670 36 0, at * 8. A s f orthe othe r tw o, the l oca l does not e xp l a i n ho w the di s t r i ctc o ur te r r e d in fi nd i ngthe m a dm i ssibl e f orpro per i m peachm ent purpos es. S peci fi cal l y, i t do es no t cl ai m tha t th eyf ai l ed to co nt r adi cta ny th i ng Crai g s ai d and fai l ed to cal l i nto questi on Cra i g’ s abi l i ty to re cal l

. “I t i s not the re sponsibi l i ty of thi s cour t to m ake ar gum ents f orthe parti es, ” V augh n v . Ki ng, 16 7 F
. 3d 347, 354 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) , and eve n w er e we so i nc l i ned nei ther p arty p ro v id e d u s a cop y of th e trialtrans cript. So w e are unabl e t o fi nd tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur tab us e d i t s di s c r eti on in find in g t h at all th re e D U I co n v i c tio n s w er e a d m iss ible f orpro per i m peachm ent purposes not bar re d b y Rule 609. Bu tthe di s t r i c tc o ur tab us e d i t s di s c r e t i o n b y a dm itti ng the evid en ce for add itiona l im p each m en t pu rp oses th atwer e i m pr o per . The i ns tr uct i o n l i m i te d the j ury to consi deri ng the co nvi ction s “i n deci ding w hether Tim othy Crai g’ s tes ti m ony i s tr uthful

. ” This bro ad ca teg o r y o fc o ns i der i nga wi tn es s’ t es ti m o ny f o r t r uthful ne ss s ubs um es , a s we ha ve de scr ibe d, v ar i o us p ossible i m p each m en t m eth od s, som e of w hich w ere properand oth ers that were not. The i nstr ucti on al low ed the j ur y t o fi nd Cr ai g ’ s te st i m o ny unt r uthful no t o nl y f o r the pr o perr ea so n tha t ev iden ce ofhi s co n-N os. 08

- 1114, 08

- 1128, 09

- 2253, etal

. 15 vic tio n s c on tr ad ict ed h is s ta t e m en ts or c alle d h is m em or y into questi on, but al so f orthe i m properr eas on that evi dence of h i s co nvi cti ons cal l ed i nto questi on h is ge n er al c h ar ac te r for tru th fu l n e ss . Th is im p er m iss ible use o fev i dence i s e xactl y what Rule 60 9 pro hibi ts. Bu t“ e v e n i fthe j ur y i ns t r uc t i o n wa s p a t e nt l yi nc o r r ect, [ the l oc al ] st i l l m ust e stabl i sh thati t was prej ud i ced by the i m properi nstr ucti on. ” G il e v. U nite d Airli nes, Inc. , 213 F.3d 365, 375 (7th Cir. 2 0 0 0 ). W e w il l not order a ne w tr i alunl es s, “cons i der i nga l l the i ns tr uct i o ns , the evi dence and the ar gum ents, i t a p p ear s that the j ury w as m isle d an d its u n d er st an d in g of t h e is su es w as se riou sly affe c te d to th e p rej u d ice of th e com p lain in g p ar ty .” E E OC v. AIC Se cu r i ty Inve s t igat i ons, Ltd. , 55 F. 3d 1276 , 12 83 (7t h C i r. 19 95) ( quoti ng M cGeshick v. C houca ir, 9 F
. 3d 1229 , 1232 (7th Cir. 1993)). The l oca l o ffer s t w o re aso ns f orwh y it w as prej ud i ced by the l i m i ti ng ins tr u cti on. Fi rs t, i t cl ai m s the i nstr ucti on dr ew a tt en ti o n t o Cr ai g ’ s co nv i ct i o ns , th er eb y “ ca st i ng the local .

. . ( o fwhi chCr ai gwas a mem be r, a nd S er afi nn w as no t) in th e sam e un favorable ligh t .” A p p ell an t’s Br. at 32. But thi s cl ai m f ai l s be cause “[ w ] e a ssum e that j uror s f ol l ow[ed] the tr i al c ou rt ’ s instr ucti ons, ” Bae v. P eters , 9 50 F
. 2d 46 9, 4 81 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 1) ( cit i ngFrancis v. Franklin , 4 7 1 U. S

. 3 0 7, 3 2 4 n . 9 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ) , s pe c i f i cal l y a dm o ni sh i ngthe j ury not t o c o ns i derCr ai g ’ s co nv i ct i o ns f orany pu rpos e o therthan to i m peach Crai g’ s t est i m ony. The l oca l al so cl ai m s prej ud i ce b ecause Crai g’s convi cti o ns s ho ul d ha ve b eena dm i tt ed f o r the r el ev an t, no ni m peach m ent purpos es ofsho w i ng Crai g’ s inel i gibi l i ty16 N os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. f orr efer ra l atthe pow erpl ant a nd the l oca l’s sel ecti ve enf or cem ent of the re fer ra l rul es f or Crai g and a ga i nst Serafi nn . Bu t S e rafi nn , not th e local, “w an ted the j ury to c o ns i derthe e vi den ce f o r the s epa r at e [ no n- i m pea ch

m ent] purpose. ” Ser af i nn , 20 07 W L 16703 60, at* 8. I nde ed, the l o ca l s pen ds a l ar g e ch unko fi ts b r i efa r g ui ng why the e vi den ce was r el ev an t, b utde vo te s nary a s en t e nc e t o wh y the e v i de nc e wa s r e l e v a ntt o i t s o wn c a s e. See, e.g ., A p p ella n t’s B r. at32 -40 . N or d oe s itex p lain ho w the i ns tr uct i o n was an y th i ng o th er th anad vanta g eo us t o i ts c as e to the det r i m en t o fS er afi nn. W i th o ut bei ng ab l e t o show prej ud ice to i ts own cas e, no new tr i al i s wa r r a nt e d.

C . Lim it ing Ins tru ction R egard ing the J oint C ou n cil’ s He a r i ng Fi nal l y the l oca l ar gues that the di stric t cour t e rr ed by fur the r i ns t r uc t i ngthe j ur y t o di s r e g a r d the c o r r e c tness ofthe j oint counci l ’ s fi nd i ng tha t S er afi nn vi ol ate d the r efer ra l r ule s in deci ding the l oca l ’ s m oti ve f orpro sec u tin g h im
. See, e.g., A p p ella n t’s B r. at 27, 32-3 3, 39 ; Re p ly Br
. a t 9- 11
. The di st r i ctc o ur t f ound thi s ar g um en t “w ai ved, ” Se r af

i nn , 2 00 7 W L 1 67 03 60 , a t * * 5- 6 ( ci ti ng Kramerv. Bancof

Am
. Se c. , LL C, 355 F.3d 96 1, 96 4 n .1 ( 7th C ir. 20 04) ( “W e hav e r epeate dlym ade cl earthat per func to r ya nd un dev el o ped ar g um en ts tha t ar e unsu p p or te d by p er tin e n t au th or ity , are w aiv ed .”)), a fi nd i ng tha t the l oca l does notdi spute o n appeal, so unli k e the o the r c ha l l e ng e d d e c i s i o ns h e r e we do n ot r e v i e w th i s o n e f o r a n ab u s e o fd i s c r e t i o n . No r d o weN os. 08

- 1114, 08

- 1128, 09

- 2253, etal

. 17

re vi ew the i nstr ucti on f orpl ai n er ro r, because the l oca l has no t bo ther ed to expl ai n w hy i t would be pro per f or us to do s o despit e the l oca l ’ s wai veri n the dis tr i ct c ourt
. SeeCity of Springfi el d, M ass. v. Kibbe, 48 0 U.S

. 25 7, 25 9- 60 ( 198 7) ( disc ussi ng f acto rs bea ring o n the propri etyo f re vie w in g a c i vil jur y in st ru c tio n for p lain err or ); cf

. C ity of Newpo rtv. Fact C o n ce rts, Inc. , 45 3 U.S

. 24 7, 25 6 ( 1981 ) ( al l o wi ngf o r pl ain- er r o r r ev iew of ci vi l j ur y i ns tr uct i o ns onl y in extr aor dinar y c i rcum sta nces)

. A rgum en ts not ra i sed o n appeal ar e wai ved. See, e
. g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cli nt on , 591 F.3d 968 , 971 (7th C ir. 2010).

D. Den i a l o fRe l i e ff r o m Su mma ryJ udg me nt W e m o v e t o Se ra fin n ’s c ro ss -ap p ea l. O n ly Fe d er al R u le of CivilProced ure 60(b) governed the d istri ct cou rt’s den i alo f S er afi nn’ s po st
- tr i al ch al l en g es t o the j o i ntc o unci l ’ s a w ar d ofsum m ar y j ud gm ent, R. 29 4, al though S er afi nn al so move d t o a l te r o r a m en d the j udg m en t u n d e r R u l e 5 9 s o th a twe mi g h tr e v i e w h i s l o s s a ts u mm ar y jud gm en t d e n ov o. Se ePe t r u v . C ity of Be r wyn , 872 F.2d 13 5 9 , 1 3 61 (7th C ir. 1989) (deta il ing the f acto rs necess ar y to tr eat an appeal f ro m a Rule 59 m oti on a s an a pp e a l fr o m t he u nd e r l y i ngj ud g men t )

. T he p r o bl em w i th r evi ew i ng S er afi nn’s m oti on under Rul e 5 9 i s that he fi l ed i t f our m onths afterthe dist ri ct c ou rtente re d sum m ar y j ud gm ent, r atherthan w ithi n ten days a s r equir ed by the r ule s then in effect, so we tr eati t a s a R u le 6 0(b ) m ot ion for re lief. SeeKiswa ni v . P hoenix Se c. A gency, Inc. , 584 F .3d 74 1, 74 2-4 3 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); see also18 N os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 6(b) ( 2) (p reven ting a d istri ct cou rt from exte nd ing the tim e to fil e a Ru le 59 m otion). S o o urf o cus i s o n Ru l e 60 ( b) , u nd erwhi chS er afi nn ne eds t o s ho w by c l ea r a nd conv inci nge vi den ce tha t th e dist ri ct c ourtwould not have gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent had i t known the add i ti onal evi dence ad d u c ed at tr ial. See G o m ez , 867 F. 2d at 405 ( fi nd i ng tha t Rul e 6 0( b) ( 2) re quir es an appell ant to show that “the new evi denc e is li k e ly to cha ng e the outc om e”); Lo ns dor f v. Se e f e l dt, 47 F. 3d 893, 89 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( fi nd i ng tha t Rul e 6 0( b) ( 3) r equi r es the a ppel l an t to pr o ve tha t fra ud pr ev en te d the fu l l a n d f a i r p r e s e nt a t i o n o fa me r i t o r i o u s c a s e )

. I n s u m, R u le 6 0(b ) req u i r e s a t a m in im u m th at th e p re vio u sly unavai l abl e e vi dence be non- cum ula ti ve. Se ra fi nn’s cl ai m f ai l s be cause he cannots h ow that evi dence r eve al ed at tr i alag ai nst the l oca l was an ythi ng o therthan cum u lat ive to the m i x ofi nfo rm ati on pr ev iouslyf ound by the di str i ct c ourtto have cr eat ed n o ge n u in e is su e e it h e r a s to th e join t c ou n c il’s ro le in re tal i ati ng ag ai nst S er afi nn oras to the j oi nt counci l ’ s bi as. As f o r r et al i at i o n, the di st r i ctc o ur t ha d c o ns i der ed th e f o l l o wi ngi nf o r m at i o n whe n i t det er m i ne d tha t S er afi nn pr o vi ded i ns uffi ci en t ev i den ce for a j ur y t o fi nd tha t th e j oin t c ou n c il ch ar ge d Ser afin nbe c au se h e e x er c ise d h is ri ght t o f re e s peech: “m or e than ‘ som e e vi dence’ ” that Se ra fi nn had v iola ted the r efer ra l r ule s, no evi dence that anyo ne si m i l ar l y s i tuate d as a n exec u ti ve offi cerhad d one so, and eviden ce d em ons trating Serafinn ’s “history ofanta goni sm w i th Gl eas on. ” Se r af i nn v. Int ’ l Bhd. of Teamst e rs , Lo ca l U ni on N o. 72 2 , N o . 0 3 C 9 4 0 9 , 2 0 0 6 WLN os. 08

- 1114, 08

- 1128, 09

- 2253, etal

. 19 2497 794, at * *8, 10 (N

. D
. I ll

. A ug . 28, 2006 ); A p p ella nt ’s Br
. a t 37( quo tingthe t r i alt r an sc r i pt)

. W e co m p are thi s with the add i ti onalev i dence addu ced at tr i althat bef or e the j oi nt co uncilbr ought c h ar ge s a gai nst S er af i nn, Glea son had m et pri vat ely w ith n ew lyel ecte d M onga n to di scu ss Se ra fi nn’s i nter fer ence w i th M onga n’s l eader shi p o fthe l oca l, had cal l ed the i nter natio n al or ga n iza tio n w h o t h en se n t B ill M oo r e t o h elp pr ev en t th e i nt er fer en ce , a nd ha d c o nduc te d a c onferen ce ca ll w it h th e j oint cou nc ildiscu ssing th e interference. I n conducti ng the c om pari son, we fi nd thatthe l att er s e to fe v i de nc e wa s c umul a t i v e t o the f o r meru nder bo ththe di r ec t a nd i ndi r ec t m etho ds o fpr o vingr et al i at i o n. Und e r the di r e c t metho d, S e r a fi nn ne e de d to show e i th e r d i r e c te v i de nc e o r a “ c o n v i n c i n gmo s a i c o fc i r c u mst an tia l ev id en c e” th at th e join t c ou n c il ch ar ge d h im w ith vio lat in g t h e re f e r r al ru les be c au se h e e x er c ise d h is rig h t t o fre e s p ee c h

. E.g
. , O ’N e al v. C ity of Chi cago , 58 8 F. 3d 406, 410 ( 7th Cir

. 2009 )

. N one of Se ra fi nn’s ev id en ce i s dir ect. A nd i f a hi sto ry of antag oni sm w ith Gle aso n did n ot provi de a c onvi nci ng m osa i c o fci rcum sta nti al evi dence w hen the dist ri ct c ourt g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent, none i s cr eat ed now by o ver l ayi ng ev i dence suggesting only that Gleaso n w an t e d S e r afinn to stop un d erm i ni ng M onga n’s autho ri ty

— no ttha tGl e a s o n wi s hed to acco m pli sh thi s e nd by act i onabl e m eans. U nd erthe i nd i re ct m etho d, Se ra fi nn n eed ed to sho w at lea st th at h e w as tre at ed d iffer en tly from sim ilar ly si tu at ed uni o n mem be r s who di d no t ex er ci se the i r r i g ht to fr ee sp ee c h

. See, e. g., Ford v. M inte q Shapes and Servs. , Inc. ,20 N os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. 587 F.3d 845, 84 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)

. S er afi nn f ai l s thi s t est be ca us e th e addi tionale vi den ce s he d no ne w l i g ht on wh etherthe local had previ ousl y di sci pli ned other executi ve offi cer s f orr efer ra l r ule violat i ons. Of cour se, w e d o not d ecid e w he th er an en t ity m ay hold m em bers i n a “ l ead ershi p po si ti o n” t o “ a hi g he r s ta nda r d o fc o ndu ct
. ” S e eLu ks v. B a xterHe al t hc ar eCorp. , 46 7 F
. 3d 1049 , 1056 ( 7th Cir. 2 006) ( fi nd i ng thi s pos i ti on “ ar guabl y” co r r e c t )

. We ho l d o nl y tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur tc o ns i dered certain eviden ce in reach ing this p os iti on, A p p ell an t’s B r . a t 3 6-3 8 (q u ot in g t h e t ria l tra n sc rip t), an d th at ad d itional eviden c e a d d uc ed l ater w as cu m ulative for p urp oses of Ru le 60(b)

. So m uch f orS er afi nn’s cl ai m thatthe add i ti onal e v i d e n c e wa s n o n - cu mu l a t i v e e v i d e n c e o fr e t a l i a t i o n . He al so cl ai m s that the add i ti onal evi dence w as non- cum ula

tiv e e vid en c e o f th e jo in t c ou n c il’s b ias , bec au se it re veal ed i m properex par te contac ts and dem onst ra ted th atthe j o i ntc o unc i l c o m m i ng l ed i ts pr o se cut o r i ala nd adj ud i cato ryfunct i ons. But the conta cts between Gle aso n and M on gan that S er afi nn cal l s “ ex part e” too k pl ace thre e m onths bef or e t h e d i sci plinarypro ceedi ngs be g a n, a n d S e r a fi n n p r o v i d e s n o e v i d e n c e th a tth e c o nta c ts t ain te d t h e p ro c ee d in gs m u c h les s re lat ed to th em . C f. Prof ’ l Ai rTr af

f i c Cont r ol l e rs O rg. v. Fe d. La b orRe l at i ons Aut h. , 6 58 F
. 2d 5 47, 5 65

- 66 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 98 2) ( di sc us sing r el ev an t f ac to r s f o r fi ndi ngtha t ex par te c o m m uni ca ti o ns ta i nt ed ana gen cy ’ s dec i si o n)

. M o r eo ve r, mer e co m m i ngli ng of p rosecu torialand adj ud icat o r y fun ctions are in su fficie n t t o s h ow bia s. See Withrow v. Larkin , 421 U
. S. 35 , 5 4 ( 1 9 7 7 )

. Ev e n i fthe y we r e s uffi c i e nt, the a ddi t i o na lN os. 08

- 1114, 08

- 1128, 09

- 2253, etal

. 21 evid en ce dem ons trates noth ing new to i nd icate G leason’s pros ecuto ri al ro l e i n thi s case , as w e disc ussed ab ove , m uch l ess any new “s p ec ific f actualal l ega ti ons f ro m w hi ch the oper ati on of bi as can b e infer re d .” See Fryev. Un i t e d S t e e l w o rk e rs o

f A m. , 767 F.2d 121 6, 1225 ( 7 t h Cir. 19 85 ), r e v’ d on othergroun ds , M eye rv. Rigdon , 36 F. 3d 1375 , 13 80 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94)
.
E. A t t orneys’ Fees At l as t we a ddr ess Serafi nn’ s ch al l en g e to the a m o unt o fa t t o r n e y s ’ fe e s th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tsa w fi tt o a wa r d h i m. The rul e g ove rni ng a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fat torneys’ f ee s l i e s i n i t s e q u i t a b l e p o we r t o d o s o “ wh e n t he in ter est s o fj usti ce r equi re . ” Hall v. C ole, 41 2 U. S

. 1, 4-5 ( 19 73 )

. The di st r i ctc o ur t was fr ee t o c ons iderr el ev an t f acto rs i nc l udi ngthe na tu r e o fthe a tt o r ne y s’ wor k, the be ne fi t o f th e su i t to o th eruni o n mem be r s, a nd the loc al’s ab i l i t y to p ay . Se ei d. at4-5 ; M uns on v. Fr i s ke, 75 4 F.2 d 68 3, 69 7 (7th C i r . 1 9 8 5 ); see also M o ria rty v . Svec, 42 9 F.3d 710 , 717 (7th C ir. 2 005) (l isti ng ad d iti ona l factors). M ult i ple equi tabl e f acto rs go ver n the cra fti ng o fan a ttorneys’ fe es award, so “[ d]i str i ct c ourt s hav e wide di scretio n to d eterm ine w ha t con stitut es reason able attorneys’ fees . ” M oriar ty, 42 9 F
. 3d at 717. Se ra fi nn cannot show that the di str i ct c ou rt a b used i ts d iscret io n . F irst, i t can not show that the d istri ct cou rt er re d i n fi nd i ng tha t the am oun t o fti m e hi s a tto rney s spent was “notappropr i ate
. ” R. 36 5 a t 4. In d eed , we see evi den c e o fh i s a t t o r ne y s i na pp r o pr i a t e l y wa s t i nge v e r yo ne ’ s ti m e i n thi s co ur t by uns uppo r te dl y c o nt r adi ct i ng22 N os . 08-1 11 4, 08 -11 28 , 09-2 25 3, etal. fac ts fou n d by th e d ist ric t c ou rt
. C o m pa reA p p e lle e’s Br. at 14 ( “Def endants’ cl ai m s a re f al se that Se ra fi nn’s re fer ra l ofhi m sel ff ort ra in ing vi ol ate d any uni on o r re fer ra l ru les .”), with S e r af

i nn , 2006 W L 2497 794, at *11 ( “P lai nt iff’ s own act i ons and test i m on y d em onst ra te that he nee ded a r efer r alf o r t r aini ng . ”)

. M o r e i m po r ta nt l y, S er afi nn m ake s no ar gum ent tha t the di str i ct c ourtsho uld not have consi dered the l oca l ’ s abi l i ty to pay i n cr afti ng an appropri ate award. Ind ee d , the l oca l co ntends thatev en the r educed aw ar d, coup l ed w i th the j ud gm ent r endered i n thi s ca se, exceeds i ts net worth. A pp el l ant’ s Br. at10

- 11. Sera fin n does notdi spute thi s, di spute i ts re l evance by showing that the inter nati onalo rg ani zati on ’s networth i s th e m o r e r el ev an t fi g ur e to exam i ne , o r e xpl ain why t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o th e r w i s e e r r e d i n c o n s i d e r i n g i t
. We ha ve c o ns i der ed th e d istri ctc o ur t’ s an al y si s an d fi nd its aw ar d of at to rn ey s’ fe es en tir ely rea so n ab le.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The l oca l ’ s cl ai m s o fer ro r f ail b ec ause they dispute j ury i nstr ucti ons ei therth at actual l y b enefi tte d i t o r f or w hi ch the l oca l waive d any chal len ge. S er afi nn’s cro ssa p p e a l o fth e di s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o fr e l i e ffr o m s u mm ar y j udg m en t f ai l s be ca us e th e ne w ev i den ce he a sk s us to c o ns i deri s cumul at i ve , a nd hi s cr o ss - appeal r eg ar di ng hi s a t t o r ne y s ’ fe e s a wa r d f a i l s b e c a us e he ne g l e c t e d t o refute th e d istri ct cou rt’s reasons i n cra fti ng i t
. Th e pa rti es ’ o th era r g um en ts a r e wi th o utmer i t an d war r an t no di scussi on. There f or e, we A FFIRM .
3- 12- 10