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

### August 14,200 6 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
D I A N E C . M c I N N I S, P l ai nti ff-A pp el l ee/ C ross A p p e llan t,
v. F A IR F IE L D C O M M U N IT IE S , IN C ., d /b /a F A IR F IE L D R E S O R T S , IN C ., a D el aw ar e corpor at i on, D efen dan t -A pp el l ant/ C ross A ppel l ee. N os . 04- 1343 & 04- 1359

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t r i c t of

C ol or ado (D . C . N o . 0 2 -Z-06 7 1 (B N B ))
K . P re sto n O a d e Jr., (T im o th yM . R e yn o ld s w ith h im o n th e b rie f ) H o lm e R o b e rts & O w en, L L P, D enver , C ol or ado, forD efe ndant
- A ppel l ant/ C r os s - A ppel l ee. A ndr ea J . K er s hner , ( E l w yn F. Schaeferw i th heron the br i ef) E l w yn F. Schaefer & A ss o c ., P .C ., D e n v e r, C o lo ra d o , fo r P lain tiff-A p p e llee /C ro ss -A p p e llan t.

B efor e M U R P H Y , E B E L , and HA RTZ , C i rcui tJudg es. EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge.W e a re tak in g th e e v id e n c e a n d a n yin fe re n c e s to b e d ra w n th e re f ro m in 1 the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o M cI nni s beca us e s he pr evai l ed befor e the j ury . See D eters v . E q u ifax C red itInfo . S erv s. , Inc . , 2 0 2 F . 3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); B atyv. W i l l amet t e I ndus . , I nc. , 172 F. 3d 1232, 1241 ( 10th C i r . 1999) , overrul ed on ot hergr ounds byN at i onal R . R . Pas s engerC orp. v. M or gan, 536 U . S. 101 (20 0 2 ). - 2 - P lain tiff-A p p e llee /C ro ss -A p p e llan t D ian e C . M c In n is (“ M c In n is” ) filed th is
e m p lo ym e n t d isc rim in a tio n su it ag a in st h e r fo rm e r e m p lo y e r, D e fe n d a n tA p p e llan t/C ro ss -A p p e llee F a irfield C o m m u n iti e s, In c ., d /b /a F a irfield R e so rts (“ F a ir fie ld ” ), c la im in g re ta lia tio n in v io la tio n o f 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e (“ T itle V II ” ). A j uryfound Fai r fi el d l i abl e and j udgm entw as ent er ed i n herfavor , aw ar di ng her $90, 000 i n back pa y , $38, 000 i n compensa t orydamages , and $167, 000 i n puni t i ve dam ages. T he d i stri ctcou rtden i ed M cInni s’ s r equ estfor frontpaydam ages; o rd e re d th a t “e a c h p a rtysh a ll p a yh e r o r its o w n c o sts ;” a n d a w a rd e d M c In n is $189, 103. 75 i n att orney s ’ fee s , w hi ch w as appr oxi m at el yhal f of the amount M c In n is re q u e ste d . F a irfield a p p e a ls f ro m th e ju d g m e n t; M c In n is c ro ss -a p p e a ls fr om the deni al of cos t s and fr ontpayand fr om the or deraw ar di ng r educe d at t orney s’ fees. W e A F F IR M on al l app eal i ssues and R E V E R S E on al l cross app eal i ssues. BA CKGROUND 1 I n 1985, M cI nni s began w or ki ng forFai r fi el d i n Pagos a Spr i ngs , C ol or ado. F a irfield is o n e o f

o n lytw o lar g e e m p lo y e rs in th e a re a . F ro m Ju n e 1 9 9 8 to A p ril- 3 -

1999, M cI nni s w or ked as t he as s i s t antt o the V i ce Pr es i dentof Sal es and O per at i ons atPagos a Spr i ngs , St eve Thul l . I n A pr i l 1999, M cI nni s w as pr om ot ed t o Pr opertyM anage ratFai r fi el d’ s s i t e i n Pagos a Spr i ngs . T hul l m ai nt ai ned
s u p e rv is o ry a u th o ri ty o v e r M c In n is a f te r h e r p ro m o tio n . S h o rtlya f

ter h e r p ro m o tio n , M c In n is a lleg e s th a t T h u ll b e g a n to se x u a lly h a ra ss h e r. T h u ll’s se x u a llya g g re ss iv e b e h a v io r to w a rd M c In n is a lleg e d ly in c re a s e d in s e v e ri ty, an d M c In n is c la im s th a t h e ra p e d h e r o n s e v e ra l o c c a s io n s . In M a rc h 2 0 0 0 , T h u ll w a s tra n sfe rre d to L a s V e g a s. A lth o u g h th is te m p o ra rily
e n d e d th e d a y -to -d a yh a ra ss m e n t, M c In n is w a s in stru c ted to c o n tac t T h u ll w h ile
o n a b u sin e ss trip in L a s V e g a s, a n d T h u ll sh o w e d u p a t h e r h o tel ro o m a n d a g a in
a lle g e d ly ra p e d h e r. M o n th s a f

ter h is tra n sfe r to L a s V e g a s, T h u ll t e lep h o n e d M c In n is a n d to ld h e r h e w a s re tu rn in g to F a irfield in P a g o sa S p rin g s. M c In n is s tar ted to c ry , told h im sh e c o u ld n o t tak e h is h a ra ss m e n t an ym o re a n d th a t sh e w a s g o in g to tell
s om eone a tFai r fi el d. T hul l beca m e veryangryand thr eat ened t o fi r e heri f s he t ol d any one. Soon aft erthi s conver s at i on, T hul l enl i s t ed M i chae l T ur ol l a, w ho had t aken ove rT hul l ’ s pos i t i on as V i ce Pr es i dentof Sal es atPagos a Spr i ngs , and E d M ik u la , th e R e g io n a l H u m a n R e s o u rc e D ir e c to r, t o re ta lia te a g a in s t M c In n is . T o g e th e r, th e se th re e su p e rv iso rs, e sp e c iallyT u ro lla, b e g a n in ter fe rin g w ith- 4 -

M c In n is’s a b ili tyto p e rfo rm h e r jo b a n d d o c u m e n tin g a lleg e d p ro b lem s w ith M cI nni s ’ s per form ance . In A ug ust20 00 , M cInni s’ s then -i m m ediat e supervis or, K ri s Jam t aas, r es i gned, and, i n N ovember2000, M ark G r ay , the Seni orR egi onal V i ce Pr es i dent
o f P ro p e rtyM a n a g e m e n t in th e w e ste rn re g io n , b e c a m e M c In n is’s n e w im m e d iate
su p e rv iso r. O n Ja n u a ry2 8 , 2 0 0 1 , M c In n is te lep h o n e d G ra ya t h is h o m e to co m p lai n ab o u t T h u ll ’s sex u al ha rassm en t and T u roll a’s, T h u ll ’s, an d M iku la’s
re talia tio n a g a in st h e r. A f ter th is p h o n e c a ll, G ra yd id n o t fo llo w -u p w ith M cI nni s abouthercompl ai nt ; i ns t ead, G r ays t ar t ed comm uni cat i ng w i th T ur ol l a, T h u ll, a n d M ik u la a n d jo in e d in th e re talia tio n a g a in st M c In n is. W h e n M c In n is cal l ed G r aya s econd t i m e t o r ai s e hers exual har as s m entand r et al i at i on co m p lai n t, G rayb ec am e v eryan g ryw ith h er a n d told h er, “ev eryroc k I tu rn o v er, I fi nd s om ethi ng on y ou. ” G r ayal s o t ol d herhe “di d notneed thi s on [hi s ] 90 day [pr obat i on per i od] . ” H e then di r ect ed M cI nni s t o r eportanypas tper s onnel i s s ues t o M i kul a bec aus e “he [G r ay ] di dn’ tw antt o geti nvol ved. ” A tt r i al , G r ay test ifi ed that h e “ d idn ’trea ll yw an t t o k n o w ” o r ge t i n v o lved w ith M cIn n is’ s compl ai ntbeca us e i ts ounded l i ke “s om e ki nd of an a ffa i r . ” G ra ya p p a re n tlyd e c id e d to ter m in a te M c In n is’s e m p lo ym e n t af ter th is
s econd t el ephone c al l and thus cont act ed M i kul a, i n hum an r es our ces , w ho
re q u e ste d d o c u m e n tatio n to su p p o rt th e ter m in a tio n . In th e m e a n tim e , M c In n is- 5 -

a ls o c o n ta c te d M ik u la , w h o to ld h e r t o p u t h e r r e ta lia tio n c o m p la in t in w ri tin g . W hi l e pr epar i ng thi s w r i t t en compl ai nt , M cI nni s s enta mem or andum t o A l ex Fogel , the V i ce Pr es i dentof Pr opertyM anage m ent , addr es s i ng G r ay ’ s r et al i at i on and fa i l ur e t o r es pond t o hercompl ai nt . Fogel i m m edi at el yi nform ed G r ayby emai l of M cI nni s ’ s compl ai nt . O nl yhour s aft erFogel ’ s emai l , G r aycont act ed M c In n is b ye m a il an d to ld h e r th a t h e w a s “ m a d e a w a re o f th e m e m o [ sh e ] se n t to [Fogel ] r egar di ng s om e conc erns . . . [and i n] r es pons e t o thos e conc erns , [w oul d] be arr i vi ng i n Pagos a Spr i ngs [the fol l ow i ng day ] and w oul d l i ke t o s chedul e a m eet i ng w i th [her ] . ” The fol l ow i ng day , G r ayand M i kul a metw i th M cI nni s , and G ra yte rm in a te d h e r e m p lo ym e n t. DI S CU S S I ON I . F ai rfi el d’ s A ppeal I s s ues F a irfield h a s a p p e a led o n se v e ra l issu e s: it cla im s th a t d istric t co u rt e rre d in 1) deny i ng i t s Fed. R . C i v. P. 50 m ot i ons forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on t he i s s ue of puni t i ve damages ; 2) r efus i ng i t s pr opos ed j ur yi ns truct i on; and 3 ) ex clud ing as h ea rsayem ail s w ri tt en b yo n e o f F airfield’s m an ag ers. W e a ffirm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e c is io n o n e a c h o f th e s e is s u e s . A . P uni t i ve D am ages W e r evi ew the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence t o s uppor ta puni t i ve damages
aw ard d e n o v o . S ee D eters, 20 2 F . 3 d at 12 6 9 . W e a lso rev iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s- 6 -

di s pos i t i on of a mot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw de novo. See B aty , 172 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 1 . Such a jud g m en t i s w arr ant ed onl yi f the evi dence poi nt s butone w ay a n d is s u sc e p tib le to n o re a so n a b le in fe re n c e s s u p p o rtin g th e p a rty oppos i ng the mot i on. W e do notw ei gh th e ev idence, pas s on the cr edi bi l i tyof the w i tnes s es , ors ubs t i tut e ourconc lus i ons forthos e of the j ury . H ow ever , w e mustent erj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw i n favor o f th e m o v in g p a rtyif

th e re is n o leg a llysu fficie n t ev id e n ti a r yb a sis w i th respect to a c laim or defen se und er the co ntr oll i ng l aw . W e m ust view the ev i den ce and anyi nferences t o b e draw n th e re f rom m ost fa v o ra b ly to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y . Id. (cit ati o n s, q u o tat ion s, alt era ti o n s o m itted); see also F ed . R . C iv. P. 50 (a). A T i t l e V I I pl ai nt i ff i s ent i t l ed t o puni t i ve damages i f hi s orherempl oy er e n g a g e d in d isc rim in a to ryp ra c tice s “ w ith m a lice o r w ith re c k les s in d iffe re n c e to [her] federal l yprot ect ed ri gh t s. ” 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 1a(b)( 1). “M al i ce” or “reckl ess i ndi ffe r ence ” do notr equi r e “a s how i ng of egr egi ous oroutr ageous ” conduc t , but i ns t ead r equi r e pr oof thatt he empl oy eract ed “i n the fa ce of a per cei ved r i s k that i t s a c t i on s [woul d] vi ol a t e fe de r a l l a w . ” K ol s t a d v . A m. D e nt a l A s s ’ n, 52 7 U. S. 526, 535- 36 ( 1999) . A n empl oy erm aybe ei therdi r ect l yorvi car i ous l yl i abl e for th e m a lic io u s o r r e c k le s s ly in d iffe re n t a c ts o f its o ffic e rs a n d e m p lo y e e s . A n empl oy eri s vi car i ous l y( ori ndi r ect l y ) l i abl e forcompensa t or ydamages
w hen “a s upervi s orw i th i m m edi at e ( ors ucce s s i vel yhi gher ) author i tyoverthe empl oy ee” perpetr at es t he Ti t l e V I I vi ol at i on. See Far agherv. C i tyof B oca Rat on , 52 4 U. S. 77 5, 80 7 ( 19 98 ) , a nd Bur l i ng t on I nd us . , I nc . v. El l e r th, 52 4 U. S.A lth o u g h th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s n o t d e fin e d “ m a n a g e ria l ca p a c ity ,” it 2 expl ai ned that“det erm i ni ng w hetheran empl oy ee meet s t hi s des cr i pt i on r equi r es a fa c t-in ten siv e in q u iry ” in w h ich th e c o u rt “ sh o u ld re v iew th e typ e o f a u th o rity thatthe empl oy erhas gi ven t o t he empl oy ee, t he amountof di s cr et i on thatt he empl oy ee ha s i n w hati s done and how i ti s acc om pl i s hed. ” K ol s t ad, 527 U . S. at 543. T he empl oy ee “ need notbe the empl oy er ’ s t op m anage m ent , offi cer s , or di r ect or s , t o be ac t i ng i n a manager i al capa ci ty , ” al though the empl oy ee mustbe “im p o rt an t. ” Id . (qu o tat ion s, cit ati o n s o m itted). A n empl oy ee maybe s ai d t o actw i thi n the s cope of empl oym enti f the em p loy ee ’s co n d u ct “is ‘th e k ind the e m p loy ee is em p loy ed to p erfo rm , ’ ‘oc cu rs s ubs t ant i al l yw i thi n t he author i zed t i m e and s pace l i m i t s , ’ and ‘ i s actuat ed, at l eas ti n part , bya purpos e t o s erve the’ empl oy er . ” I d. at543- 44 ( quot i ng R e s ta te m e n t ( S e c o n d ) o f A g e n c y , § 2 2 8 (1 )) .

- 7 - 742, 765 ( 1998) ; s ee a l s o D et er s , 202 F. 3d at1270 n. 3. B eca us e “i ti s ‘ i m pr oper o rd in a rilyto a w a rd p u n iti v e d a m a g e s a g a in st o n e w h o h im se lf is p e rso n a lly i nnocentand ther efor e l i abl e onl yvi car i ous l y , ’ ” K ol s t ad, 527 U . S. at544 ( quot i ng R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) o f T o rts, § 9 0 9 , cm t. b) , “b e fo re a c o m p a n yis h e ld liab le fo r p u n iti v e d a m a g e s fo r a c ts o f h a ra ss m e n t b ylo w -le v e l em p lo y e e s, th e re [ m u st] be s om e cul pabi l i tybey ond m er e negl i gence atthe managementl evel , ” D anco, In c . v . W a l-M a rt S to re s, In c ., 1 7 8 F .3 d 8 , 1 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (first e m p h a sis in
or i gi nal ; s econd e m phas i s added) . T hus , an empl oy eri s vi car i ous l yl i abl e for p u n i t i v e d a m a g e s “ w h e r e a n e m p l o ye e s e r v i n g i n a ‘ m a n a g e r i a l c a p a c i ty’
comm i t t ed the w r ong w hi l e ‘ act i ng i n the s cope of empl oym ent . ’ ” K ol s t ad, 527 U . S. at 543. H ow ever , “i n t he puni t i ve damages cont ext , an empl oy erm aynotbe

2 vicar i ou sl yl i able for the [v i olat i ve] decis i on s of m anag eri al agen t s w here th[o ]s eT h is h a s c o m e to b e k n o w n a s th e “ g o o d fa ith ” o r “ K o lsta d ” d e fe n se to 3 puni t i ve damages . W e have noty etdeci ded w hethert hi s s o- cal l ed “de fens e” “r epr es ent s an affi r m at i ve defens e on w hi ch the defendantbear s t he bur den of p ro o f o r w h e th e r th e p lain tiff m u st d isp ro v e th e d e fe n d a n t’s g o o d fa ith compl i ance w i th T i t l e V I I . ” D aveyv. L ockhee d M ar t i n C orp. , 301 F. 3d 1204, 1209 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . A num berof othercourt s have determ i ned that the d efen se i s an affirm at i ve o ne an d p l ace t he b urden to est abli sh i ton the defendant . See Zi m m erm an v. A s s oc. Fi r s tC api t al C orp. , 251 F. 3d 376, 3 8 5 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); R o m an o v . U -H au l, Int’l , 2 3 3 F . 3 d 6 5 5 , 6 7 0 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); P a ss a n tin o v . Jo h n so n & Jo h n so n C o n su m e r P ro d s., In c ., 2 1 2 F .3 d 4 9 3 , 5 1 6 (9 th C i r . 2000) ; D effenbaugh- W i l l i ams v. W al
- M ar tSt or es , I nc. , 188 F. 3d 278, 286 (5th C i r. 19 99 ). W e need no tres olve this i ssue i n d eci ding w hetherj ud gm ent as a ma t t e ro f

l a w wa s wa r r a n t e d i n th i s c a s e b e c a u s e o u rr e s u l two u l d b e t h e s a me underei thers t andar d. W e ther efor e do notaddr es s w hethert he evi dence w oul d al s o s uppor tt he 4 puni t i ve damages aw ar d undera di r ectl i abi l i tyt heory . D i r ectl i abi l i ty , unl i ke vi car i ous l i abi l i ty , i s pr emi s ed on a pa r ty ’ s ow n m al fea s ance . B eca us e a corporat i on “can o nlyactthroug h it s officer s and em ploy ees, ” M agn um F oo ds, Inc. v. C on t ’l C as. C o. , 36 F . 3d 14 91 , 14 99 (10t h C i r. 19 94 ), w ere w e t o ad dress di r ectl i abi l i tyi n t hi s cas e, w e w oul d need t o r es ol ve the i s s ue of w hatl evel of empl oym enti s equi val entt o “management - l evel . ” See D et er s , 202 F. 3d at1270 ( not i ng that“empl oy erm al i ce orr eckl es s i ndi ffe r ence i n fai l i ng t o r emedyor (continued...) - 8 - d e c isio n s a re c o n tra ryto th e e m p lo y e r’s g o o d fa ith e ffo rts to c o m p lyw ith T itl e V I I . ” I d. at545 ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o D et er s , 202 F. 3d at1271. 3

H er e, the evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he j ury ’ s puni t i ve damages
a w a rd u n d e r a v ica rio u s lia b ili tyth e o ryb e c a u se m a n a g e ria l em p lo y e e s w ith in Fai r fi el d m al i ci ous l yand r eckl es s l yr et al i at ed aga i ns tM cI nni s forr eport i ng sexual haras sm ent. S pecifi cal l y , t he ev i den ce i nd i cat es that aft er M cInni s fi rs t 4(...continued) 4 pr eventa hos t i l e oroffe ns i ve w or k envi r onm entof w hi ch management
- l evel e m p lo y e e s k n e w o r sh o u ld h a v e k n o w n is p re m ise d o n d ire c t li a b ili ty ” ) (e m p h a sis added) . W e r ecogni ze thats om e of ourcas es s eem t o i ncons i s t ent l ydefi ne w hi ch e m p lo y e e s a re su fficie n tlyh ig h lyra n k e d to h o ld a n e m p lo y e r d ire c tlyliab le a t all, as w el l as t o i ncons i s t ent l ydefi ne w hi ch empl oy ees ar e s uffi ci entt o hol d an e m p lo y e r d ire c tlyliab le fo r c o m p e n sa to rya n d p u n iti v e d a m a g e s. B e c a u se th is i s s ue w as notadequa t el ybr i efe d, and bec aus e i ti s unnece s s aryt o deci de w hether j udgm entcoul d be pr edi cat ed on di r ectl i abi l i ty , w e do notr es ol ve thes e i s s ues to d a y . C o m p a re D e ter s, 2 0 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 9 -7 1 ; F itzg e ra ld v . M o u n tain S tate s T e l. & T e l. C o ., 6 8 F .3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ); w ith L o c k a rd v . P iz z a H u t, I n c ., 162 F. 3d 1062, 1074 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ; A dl erv. W al
- M ar tSt or es , I nc. , 144 F. 3d 664, 674 ( 10th ci r . 1998) ; W i l s on v. T ul s a J uni orC ol l ege, 164 F. 3d 534, 542 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); Jeffries v . K an sas, 14 7 F . 3 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 9 n . 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ), abr ogat ed on othergr ounds byE l l er th, 524 U . S. 742 ( 1988) ; Sauer s v. Sal tL ake C o u n ty , 1 F . 3 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 2 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). - 9 - compl ai ned t o G r ayaboutT hul l ’ s s exual har as s m entand Turol l a’ s , T hul l ’ s , and M i kul a’ s r et al i at i on, G r aybegan r et al i at i ng agai ns therbyi nt er fer i ng w i th her ab il ityto p erfo rm h er job an d d o cu m en ti n g all eg ed p rob lem s w ith M cIn n is’ s per form ance t hathad notpr evi ous l yexi s t ed. A ft erM cI nni s ’ s s econd c om pl ai nt to G ra y , h e to ld h e r th a t h e d id n o t w a n t to g e t in v o lv e d a n d a lm o st im m e d iate ly ther eaf t erdeci ded t o t erm i nat e herempl oym ent . T hen, the dayaft erG r ay d isc o v e re d th a t M c In n is c o m p lain e d to F o g e l, th e V ice P re sid e n t o f P ro p e rty M a n a g e m e n t, ab o u t G ra y ’s r e talia tio n a n d h is fa ilu re to re sp o n d to h e r c o m p lain t, G r ays chedul ed a meet i ng w i th M cI nni s and M i kul a and i m m edi at el yt erm i nat ed M cI nni s ’ s empl oym ent . B as ed on thi s evi dence , a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd t hat M c In n is’s ter m in a tio n w a s illeg a l re talia tio n a g a in st h e r fe d e ra llyp ro tec ted rig h ts fo r r e p o rt in g s e x u a l h a ra s s m e n t.- 10 -

A s Fai r fi el d acknow l edges , i tr egul ar l ytr ai ned i t s empl oy ees conce rni ng T itl e V II’s p ro h ib iti o n s a g a in st h a ra ss m e n t an d re talia tio n . In fa c t, T u ro lla tes tifie d th a t th e tra in in g w a s “ m a n d a to ry .” M o re im p o rta n tly , G ra ysp e c ifica lly t es t i fi ed thathe under s t ood t hatempl oy ees have a r i ghtt o compl ai n form al l yor i nform al l yabouts exual har as s m ent . A r eas onabl e j urycoul d ther efor e have concl uded thatatl eas tone manager i al agent , the Seni orR egi onal V i ce Pr es i dent of Pr opertyM anage m entforthe w es t ern r egi on, w as aw ar e of the r el evantfede r al pr ohi bi t i ons and neve r thel es s r et al i at ed aga i ns tM cI nni s . B yt erm i nat i ng M cI nni s ’ s empl oym enti n r et al i at i on forr eport i ng s exual har as s m ent“i n the fa ce of a pe r cei ved r i s k that[s uch] act i ons w [oul d] vi ol at e fe der al l aw , ” K ol s t ad, 527 U .S . at 5 4 3 , the ju ryc o u ld re a so n a b lyh a v e fo u n d F a irfield v ica rio u slyliab le in pu nit i ve d am ages. Fai r fi el d ar gues thatpuni t i ve damages w er e neve r thel es s notw arr ant ed b e c a u se 1 ) it m a d e g o o d -fa ith e ffo rts to c o m p lyw ith T itl e V II; a n d 2 ) M c In n is fai l ed to foll ow F ai rfi el d’s com plai nt pr oced ure. W e rej ectbo th o f t hese argum ents . 1. K ols tad d efense T o avai l i t s el f of K ol s t ad’ s good- fai th- compl i ance s t andar d, an empl oy er m u st atleast 1) “ ad o p t antidiscri m ination p o li cies;” 2 ) “m ak e a g o o d fa ith effo rt t o educa t e i t s empl oy ees aboutthes e pol i ci es and the s t atut orypr ohi bi t i ons ”; andA n a d d iti o n a l p ro b lem fo r F a irfield ’s p o sitio n in th is re g a rd is th a t it 5 m ai nt ai ned pr ocedur es onl yforr eport i ng s exual har as s m ent . H er e, t he j ur yfound Fai r fi el d l i abl e forr et al i at i on, and none of Fai r fi el d’ s pol i ci es m ake a nyr efe r ence t o pr ocedur es forr eport i ng r et al i at i on, al though Fai r fi el d’ s pol i ci es pr ohi bi t ed re talia tio n a s w e ll as se x u a l h a ra ss m e n t. - 11 - 3) m ake “ good fai th effor t s t o enfor ce a n ant i di s cr i m i nat i on pol i cy . ” C adena v. Paces ett erC orp. , 224 F. 3d 1203, 1210 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . Fai r fi el d cont ends thati tm ai nt ai ned a w r i t t en pol i cy agai ns t di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on. W hi l e ther e i s s om e deba t e r egar di ng 5
w hetherFai r fi el d demonstr at ed good- fai th effor t s t o educa t e i t s empl oy ees about i t s s peci fi c pol i ci es , w e nee d notaddr es s t hati s s ue bec aus e the j ur ycoul d have
re a so n a b lyc o n c lu d e d th a t F a irfield fa iled to e n fo rc e , o r m a k e g o o d -fa ith e ffo rts to e n fo rc e , an ya n tid isc rim in a tio n p o licie s it a d o p ted . W e h a v e p re v io u sly expl ai ned that , “eve n i f an e m pl oy er [] adduce s evi dence s how i ng i tm ai nt ai ns on p a p e r a stro n g n o n -d isc rim in a tio n p o licya n d m a k e s g o o d fa ith e ffo rts to e d u c a te i t s empl oy ees aboutthatpol i cyand Ti t l e V I I , a pl ai nt i ff mays t i l l r ecove rpuni t i ve d am ag es if sh e d em o n str ates the em p loy er fail ed to ad eq u atelyad d ress T it le V II
v io la tio n s o f

w h ic h it w a s a w a re .” C a d e n a , 2 2 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 0 . H er e, the evi dence i ndi cat es t hat , i n D ece m ber1999, M cI nni s compl ai ned t o J amt aas , herthen- i m m edi at e s upervi s or , aboutT hul l ’ s s exual l yhar as s i ng behavi or . A l though J amt aas cont act ed Thul l aboutM cI nni s ’ s compl ai nt , he neve rI n hi s far ew el l l ett ert o M cI nni s aft err es i gni ng fr om Fai r fi el d, J amt aas 6 w r ot e: A nd fi nal l yD i ane . . . I have t o t hank y ou forpr ovi di ng m e a s afe haven dur i ng al l of m yvi s i t s t o Pagos a Spr i ngs . I can hone s t l y saythatI w as tru l ya n a n g e l d u r i n g e a c h o f myma n yv i s i t s w i t h y o u a n d y o u rt e a m. O f cour s e i thad nothi ng t o do w i th the fa ctthat I k n ew that if I ever e v e n lo o k e d a n yo f y o u r sta ff e y e -to -e y e a f ter h o u rs th a t I w o u ld b e h it w i th a har as s m ents uit e [sic] befor e I coul d bl i nk! T her e i s s om ethi ng i n the w at erup t her e! - 12 - fo llo w e d u p w ith M c In n is a n d late r m a d e lig h t o f h e r c o m p lain t. In Ja n u ary 6 2 0 0 1 , M c In n is c a lled G ra y , h e r im m e d iate su p e rv iso r a t th e tim e , to c o m p lain aboutT hul l ’ s s exual har as s m entand Turol l a’ s , T hul l ’ s , and M i kul a’ s r et al i at i on agai ns ther . G r ayt ol d M cI nni s t hat“[s he] [coul d] al w ay s l ook ats om ethi ng di ffe r ent , w hen y ou s t ep aw ayfr om i t , outof s i ghtand outof m i nd” and that M c In n is “ n e e d e d to n o t let e m o tio n s ta k e o v e r.” A f ter th is p h o n e c a ll, G ra yd id notfol l ow - up w i th M cI nni s abouthercompl ai nt . M cI nni s cal l ed G r aya s econd tim e to ra ise h e r se x u a l h a ra ss m e n t an d re talia tio n c o m p lain t. D u rin g th is
c o n v e rsa tio n , G ra yto ld M c In n is th a t af ter th e ir first te lep h o n e c a ll, h e talk e d to T hul l , M i kul a, and Fogel abouthercompl ai nt . G r ayt hen t ol d M cI nni s t hathe

“ d id n o t n e e d th is o n [ h is] 9 0 d a y[ p ro b a tio n p e rio d ].” H e d ire c ted M c In n is to
r eportanypas tper s onnel i s s ues t o M i kul a bec aus e he di d notw antt o get i nvol ved. M cI nni s then cont act ed M i kul a t o compl ai n aboutbei ng har as s ed and
re ta lia te d a g a in s t, a n d h e in s tru c te d h e r t o p u t h e r r e ta lia tio n c o m p la in t in w ri tin g .T h e S e v e n th C irc u it h a s e x p re ss e d c o n c e rn th a t th e K o lsta d g o o d fa ith 7 defe ns e coul d neverbe empl oy ed i n a vi car i ous l i abi l i tycas e i f the har as s er ’ s ( or r et al i at or ’ s ) know l edge of the har as s m ent( orr et al i at i on) w er e i m put ed t o the em p loy er. Se e C o o k e v . S tefa n i M g m t. S erv s. , Inc . , 2 5 0 F . 3 d 5 6 4 , 5 6 9 (7th C ir . 2001) . A l though w e r ecogni ze the bas i s of thi s conce rn, i tdoes notaffectour d e c isio n in th is c a se b e c a u se F o g e l, th e V ice P re sid e n t o f P ro p e rtyM a n a g e m e n t, i n addi t i on t o G r ay , M i kul a, T ur ol l a, and Thul l , w as i nform ed of the har as s m ent and r et al i at i on. - 13 - W hi l e pr epar i ng thi s w r i t t en compl ai nt , M cI nni s s enta mem or andum t o Fogel
c o m p la in in g o f

G ra y ’s re ta lia tio n a n d h is fa ilu re to re s p o n d to h e r c o m p la in t. F o g e l th e n c o n ta c te d G ra yb ye m a il a n d in fo rm e d h im o f M c In n is ’s c o m p la in t. I n s hor t , the evi dence i n thi s cas e i ndi cat es thatbetw een D ece m ber1999 and February2001, M cI nni s r epor t ed har as s m entand r et al i at i on t o atl eas tthe Seni orR egi onal V i ce Pr es i dentof Pr opertyM anage m ent , the V i ce Pr es i dentof Pr opertyM anage m ent , and the R egi onal H um an R es our ce D i r ect or , al l of w hom fai l ed t o t ake any act i on t o rem edy the si tuati on or st op the ret al i at i on . “B ecause 7
s uffi ci entevi dence w as pr es ent ed on w hi ch a j ur ycoul d have found [Fai r fi el d] di d notm ake good fai th effor t s t o compl yw i th T i t l e V I I , t hi s courtw i l l notent er j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw i n favorof [Fai r fi el d] on the ques t i on of puni t i ve d a m a g e s .” C a d e n a , 2 2 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 0 .

2. C om pl i ance w i t h com pl ai nt procedures F ai rfi el d als o co ntends that punit i ve d am ages w ere notw arr anted becau se M cI nni s fai l ed t o fol l ow Fai r fi el d’ s compl ai ntpr ocedur e. U nderFar agherand- 14 -

E l l erth, an empl oy eri s s hi el ded fr om vi car i ous l i abi l i tyforT i t l e V I I vi ol at i ons w her e no t angi bl e empl oym entact i on w as t aken a gai ns tthe empl oy ee i f i tcan p ro v e a tw o -p ro n g e d a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se : 1 ) “ th e e m p lo y e r e x e rc ise d re a so n a b le
car e t o pr eventand corr ectpr om pt l yanys exual l yhar as s i ng behavi or , ” and 2) t he pl ai nt i ff “ unr eas onabl yfai l ed t o t ake a dvant age of anypr event at i ve orcorr ect i ve o p p o rtu n it ies p rov ided b ythe e m p loy er o r t o av o id h arm o therw ise. ” F ara g h er, 524 U . S. at807; E l l erth, 524 U . S. at765. Fai r fi el d acknow l edges thati ti s not en ti tl ed to the F ara g h er/E ll erth d efen se b ec au se term inating M cIn n is’ s e m p lo ym e n t co n stitu ted a tan g ib le e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n ; h o w e v e r, itu rg e s u s to adopta new rul e pr ecl udi ng puni t i ve damages w her e an e m pl oy ee fai l s t o fol l ow k n o w n p ro c e d u re s fo r r e p o rt in g T itle V II v io la tio n s . N one of the ca s es ci t ed byFai r fi el d i n s uppor tof thei rpos i t i on, W i l l i ams v. M i s s our i D ep’ tof M ent al H eal th, 407 F. 3d 972 ( 8th C i r . 2005) , cert . deni ed, 74 U .S .L .W . 3 3 9 0 (U .S . J a n 0 9 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( N O . 0 5 -5 1 5 ); C o o k e v . S te fa n i M g m t. S e rv s ., 250 F. 3d 564 ( 7th C i r . 2001) ; and W i l l i ams v. T r aderPubl ’ g C o. , 218 F. 3d 481 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ), ad o p t or ap p lythe ru le F airfield u rge s u s to a d o p t. M o re i m por t ant l y , unl i ke the Far agher/ E l l er th doctr i ne, K ol s t ad does notdepend on the act i ons of the pl ai nt i ff butm er el yr equi r es thatthe empl oy erdemonstr at e i tm ade “good- fai th effor t s t o pr eventdi s cr i m i nat i on i n the w or kpl ace . ” K ol s t ad, 527 U . S. at546; s ee a l s o C adena , 224 F. 3d at1210 ( des cr i bi ng the ac t s an empl oy erT h e “ F a irfield C o m m u n iti e s, In c . E m p lo y e e H a n d b o o k ” d ire c ted th a t: 8 I f an e m pl oy ee be l i eves he/ s he i s t he s ubj ect o f s exual har as s m ent , t he e m p lo y e e m u st re p o rt th e a lleg e d a c t(s) w ith in fo rty -e ig h t (4 8 ) h o u rs to hi s orhers upervi s or . I f th e su p ervi s ori s unavai l abl e orthe empl oy ee is u n c o m fo rta b le c o n ta c ti n g th e su p e rv iso r, th e e m p lo y e e sh o u ld i m m ediat el ycon t actthe V i ce P res i den tof H um an R e so u rces . E m p lo y e e s c a n ra ise c o n c e rn s a n d m a k e re p o rts w ith o u t fe a r o f re p risa l.

. . . A nys upervi s ororm anage rw ho becomes aw ar e of pos s i bl e sexual or otheru n law fu l har as s m entm us tpr om pt l yadvi s e the V i ce Pr es i dentof H um an R es our ces w h o w il l handl e the mat t eri n a t i m el yand co n fid en ti al m an n er. F a irfield in ste a d c o n ten d s th a t it s “ S e x u a l H a ra ss m e n t P o licy ,” re v ise d in 9 M arc h 1 9 9 8 , ch an g ed the c o m p lai n t pro ce d u re to req u ir e tha t em p loy ee s “re p o rt the al l eged a ct ( s ) [of s exual har as s m ent ] w i thi n for tyei ght( 48) hour s t o the l ocal g e n e ra l m a n a g e r o r, if y o u a re n o t co m fo rta b le w ith th is re p o rtin g a rra n g e m e n t, (continued...) - 15 - m us tt ake t o be s hi el ded fr om vi car i ous puni t i ve damages l i abi l i tyw i thoutany re fe re n c e to a c tio n s (o r in a c tio n s) b yth e p lain tiff). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt th u s d id noti m pos e a r equi r ementthatan empl oy ee fol l ow know n pr ocedur es forr epor t i ng h a ra s s m e n t o r r e ta lia tio n in o rd e r t o re c e iv e p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . I n anyevent , al though Fai r fi el d cont ends otherw i s e, s uffi ci entevi dence exi s t s forthe j uryt o have found thatM cI nni s fol l ow ed Fai r fi el d’ s compl ai nt p roc ed u res. Fa ir field’s E m p loy ee H an d b o o k d ir ec ted e m p loy ee s to rep o rt har as s m ent t o thei r s upervi s or . Fai r fi el d does notdi s put e thatG r ayw as 8 M cI nni s ’ s s upervi s or . T hus , w hen M cI nni s i nform ed G r ayof Thul l ’ s s exual 9(...continued) 9 y ou can c ont actPaul T ocas h . . . orM ar i l yn C al va . . . i n the C orpor at e H um an R es our ces D epart m ent . ” M cI nni s t es t i fi ed, how ever , thats he r ece i ved the E m p lo y e e H a n d b o o k , w h ich d ire c ted h e r to re p o rt h a ra ss m e n t to h e r su p e rv iso r, in 1 9 9 9 , w h ich is af

ter th e S ex u al H ara ssm en t Po li cyall eg ed lyam en d ed F airfield’s r eport i ng pr ocedur e. W e do “notm ake c r edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons orw ei gh the evi dence ” w hen r evi ew i ng a mot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . L oughr i dge v . C h iles P o w e r S u p p lyC o ., 4 3 1 F .3 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 8 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). L a n g u a g e in Fai r fi el d’ s E m pl oy ee H andbook s uppor t s a det erm i nat i on thatFai r fi el d’ s s exual har as s m entpol i cyi ns truct ed empl oy ees t o i nform thei rs upervi s orof al l egat i ons of s exual har as s m ent . N otw i ths t andi ng ot herevi dence , w e ac ceptevi dence favo rabl e t o M cInni s. - 16 - h a ra ss m e n t an d T u ro lla’s , T h u ll’s, an d M ik u la’ s re talia tio n , sh e c o m p lied w ith F ai rfi el d’s com plai nt pol i ci es. B . R efuse d P ropos ed Jury I nst ruct i on I n i t s s econd i s s ue on appe al , Fai r fi el d cl ai m s i tw as pr ej udi ced byt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s err oneous r efus al t o gi ve the j ur yt he fol l ow i ng t ender ed i ns truct i on: “Fearof r et al i at i on i s nota l egi t i m at e r eas on forfai l ur e t o us e a r eas onabl e and a vai l abl e pr ocedur e forr eport i ng al l eged ha r as s m ent . ” I tar gues that the d istri ct co u rt ’s refu sal t o g ive th is i n stru cti o n all o w ed the ju ryto ign o re M cI nni s ’ s fai l ur e t o fol l ow Fai r fi el d’ s pol i cyand l i kel ynul l i fi ed Fai r fi el d’ s goodfa ith K o ls ta d d e fe n s e to p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . W e d is a g re e . “W e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on nott o gi ve a tend ere d juryinstruction . ” Q u igleyv . R o sen thal, 3 2 7 F . 3 d 1 0 4 4 , 1 0 6 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). “I n d o in g so , w e a lso c o n sid e r th e in stru c tio n s a s a w h o le d e n o v o to det erm i ne w hethertheyacc ur at el yi nform ed the j uryof the governi ng l aw . ” I d.M c In n is u rg e s u s to h o ld in th is a p p e a l th a t th e F a ra g h e r/E llerth 10 d e fe n se n e v e r a p p lies to a re talia tio n c a se b e c a u se th e d e fe n se d o e s n o t ap p ly w hen the empl oy ee s uffe r ed a “ t angi bl e empl oym entact i on” and r et al i at i on under (continued...) - 17 - ( q u o t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) . “ [ F ] a u l tyj u ryi n s tru c t i o n [ s ] r e q u i r e [ ] r e v e r s a l wh e n ( 1 ) we h a v e su b sta n tial d o u b t w h e th e r th e in stru c tio n s, c o n sid e re d a s a w h o le, p ro p e rly g u id e d th e ju ryin its d e lib e ra tio n s; a n d (2 ) w h e n a d e ficie n t ju ryin stru c tio n is pr ej udi ci al . ” Tow ns end v. L um berm ens M ut . C as . C o. , 294 F. 3d 1232, 1242 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o ta tio n s , c ita tio n s o m itte d ). T he i ns truct i on t ender ed byFai r fi el d appea r s t o be a c or r ects t at ementof fede r al l aw forpurpos es of appl y i ng t he Far agher/ E l l er th defe ns e. See H arr i s on v. E ddyPot as h, I nc. , 248 F. 3d 1014, 1026 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( r ecogni zi ng a s i m i l ar propo sed j uryi nst ruct i on t o b e a correctst at em ent of fede ral l aw ); see al so B arr ettv. A ppl i ed R adi antE ner gyC orp. , 240 F. 3d 262, 267 ( 4th C i r . 2001) ( s t at i ng, i n the cont extof the Far agher/ E l l er th defe ns e, that“[a ] gener al i zed fear of r et al i at i on does notexcus e a fai l ur e t o r eports exual har as s m ent ”) ; Shaw v. A ut oZ one, I nc. , 180 F. 3d 806, 813 ( 7th C i r . 1999) ( “[A ] n empl oy ee’ s s ubj ect i ve fea r s of conf

r ont at i on, unpl eas antnes s orr et al i at i on do notal l evi at e the
e m p lo y e e ’s d u tyu n d e r E llerth to a ler t th e e m p lo y e r to th e a lleg e d lyh o stile
en v ir o n m en t. ”). B u t th e F ara g h er/E ll erth d efen se d o es n o t app lyin ca ses w h ere the empl oy ert akes an adve r s e empl oym entact i ons ; her e, Fai r fi el d t erm i nat ed M cI nni s ’ s empl oym ent . See H arr i s on, 248 F. 3d at1024. I tw as notan abus e of 10(...continued) 10 T enth C i r cui tcas e l aw r equi r es an adve r s e empl oym entact i on. H i l l i g v. R u m sfe ld , 3 8 1 F .3 d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 3 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ O n e e lem e n t o f a p rim a fa c ie cas e underT i t l e V I I i s thatthe pl ai nt i ff s uffe r ed an ‘ adver s e empl oym ent a c tio n .’”) . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt, h o w e v e r, re c e n tlyh e ld th a t a r e talia tio n c laim d o e s n o t r e q u ir e p ro o f o f a n a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . S e e B u rl in g to n N . & S anta Fe R y . C o. v. W hit e, — U . S . — , 12 6 S . C t . 24 05 , 24 14 -15 (200 6); see al so A r go v. B l ue C r os s & B l ue Shi el d of K an. , I nc. , — F. 3d — , 2006 W L 1806605, at *7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).

W ith re g a rd to p u n iti v e d a m a g e s, th e d istric t co u rt in stru c ted th e ju ry , in 11 rel evan tpart , as fol l ow s: I f y ou fin d in favorof Pl ai nt i ff on he rcl ai m of r et al i at i on, then y ou m ustde c id e w hetherdefe nd ant act ed w i th m al i ce or r eckles s ind iffe renc e t o Pl ai nt i ff’ s r i ghtnott o be r et al i at ed aga i ns t . D efe ndant act ed w i th m al i ce orr eckl es s i ndi fferen ce if ithas been pr oved bythe pr eponder ance o f the evi dence thatthe per s on orper s ons w ho ter m in a ted P lain tiff ’s e m p lo ym e n t k n e w th a t th e ter m in a tio n w a s in vi ol at i o n o f

t h e l a w pr o h i b i t i n g r e t a l i a t i o n fo re n g a g i n g i n p r o t e c t ed a c t i v i ty , o ra c t e d wi th r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d o f t h a tl a w. A l though t hi s i ns truct i on does notpr eci s el yt r ack the Supr eme C our t ’ s l anguage in K o lsta d , itd o e s n o t ap p e a r th a t F a irfield c h a llen g e d it b e fo re th e d istric t co u rt, an d itd o es n o t argu e o n ap p ea l th at th is i n stru cti o n im p rop erlyinfo rm ed the ju ry of the go verni ng l aw . S ee 10 th C i r. R . 28 . 2(C )( 3)( b) ( no t i ng t hat “[b]r i efs m ust ci t e the pr eci s e r efe r ence i n t he r ecor d w her e a r equi r ed obj ect i on w as m ade a nd rul ed on, i f the appe al i s bas ed on . . . t he gi vi ng of orr efus al t o gi ve a pa r t i cul ar ju ryin stru c tio n ” ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 1 0 .1 (A )(1 ) (“ T h e a p p e llan t m u st p ro v id e a ll p o rtio n s o f

th e tra n sc rip t n e c e ss a ryto g iv e th e c o u rt a c o m p lete a n d a c c u ra te re c o rd o f

th e p ro c e e d in g s re la te d to th e is s u e s o n a p p e a l.” ). - 18 - di s cr et i on forthe di s tr i ctcourtt o r efus e t o gi ve a pr operi ns truct i on on an irrelev an t i ssu e. T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s i n stru cti o n s p rop erlyco n v ey ed to the jury the i s s ues t o be dec i ded. 11 C . E x c lu d e d E m a ils- 19 -

W e re v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s fo r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . U ni t ed St at es v. V i s i nai z, 428 F. 3d 1300, 1313 ( 10th C i r . 2005) , cert . deni ed, 74 U . S. L . W . 3393 ( U . S. J an. 9, 2006) ( N o. 05- 7839) . “W e w i l l notoverturn an e v id e n tiary ru lin g a b se n t a d istin c t sh o w in g th a t itw a s b a se d o n a c lea rly
err oneous fi ndi ng of fa ctoran err oneous concl us i on of l aw orm ani fes t s a cl ear erro r of jud g m en t. ” Id . (qu o tat ion s o m itted). E v en assu m ing the d istri ct co u rt abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n excl udi ng evi dence , w e mustal s o det erm i ne w hethert he exclusi on w as harm l ess errorbecau se “w e w i l l no tsetasi de a juryverdi ctun l ess the err orpr ej udi ci al l yaffect s a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof a pa r ty . ” Pr as euth v. R ubberm ai d, I nc. , 406 F. 3d 1245, 1253 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . “A n err oraffect i ng a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof a pa r tyi s an err orw hi ch had a ‘ s ubs t ant i al i nfl uence ’ orw hi ch l eave s one i n ‘ gr ave doubt ’ as t o w hetheri thad s uch an e ffe cton the out come. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Sarr aci no, 340 F. 3d 1148, 1171 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng K ot t eakos v. U ni t ed St at es , 328 U . S. 750 ( 1946) ) . “W hen conduc t i ng our harm l es s err oranal y s i s , w e r evi ew t he r ecor d as a w hol e. ” I d. ( quot at i ons o m itte d ). A ttr i al , Fai r fi el d offe r ed a s er i es of emai l s w r i t t en byT ur ol l a as evi dence
o f T u ro lla’s sta te o f

m in d a n d to re b u t M c In n is’s c h a rg e th a t h is c o m p lain ts
a g a in st h e r w e re m o tiv a ted b ya d e sire to re talia te. T h e d istric t co u rt re f u se d to- 20 -

admi tthe emai l s on t he gr ound thattheyw er e i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ay , w hi ch Fai r fi el d cont ends w as pr ej udi ci al err or . W e di s agr ee w i th Fai r fi el d’ s cont ent i on.

1. W het her t he di s t ri ct court err ed Fai r fi el d cont ends thatthe emai l s w er e admi s s i bl e 1) underFed. R . of Evi d. 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( B) a s p r i o rc o n s i s t e n ts t a t e me n t s , 2 ) a s n o n h e a r s a y , 3 ) u n d e rF e d . R. E vi d. 803’ s s t at e of mi nd exce pt i on, or4) undert he B es tE vi dence R ul e.

a . P rior co n sist en t statem en ts Fed. R . of Evi d. 801( d) ( 1) ( B ) pr ovi des t hata s t at ementi s nothear s ayi f: T he d ecl arantt est i fi es atthe tr i al or heari ng a n d i s subj ectt o crosse x a m in a tio n c o n c e rn in g th e s ta te m e n t, an d th e s ta te m e n t is . . . cons i s t entw i th the dec l ar an t’ s t es t i m onyand i s offe r ed t o r ebutan expr es s or i m pl i ed char ge aga i ns tthe dec l ar antof r ece ntfabr i cat i on or i m pr operi nfl uence orm ot i ve. T he Supr eme C our thas hel d t hatt hi s rul e “pe r m i t s t he i ntr oduct i on of a decl ar ant ’ s cons i s t entout - of- courts t at ement s t o r ebuta cha r ge of r ece nt fa b ri ca ti o n o r i m p rop er influen ce o r m o ti v e o n lyw h en tho se statem en ts w ere m ade be for e the cha r ged r ece ntfabr i cat i on ori m pr operi nfl uence orm ot i ve. ” T o m e v . U n ited S tate s, 5 1 3 U .S . 1 5 0 , 1 6 7 (1 9 9 5 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). U n d e r th is
r equi r ement , then, T ur ol l a’ s pr i orcons i s t ents t at ement s ar e i nadmi s s abl e hea r s ay unl es s he made them befor e hi s i m pr operm ot i ve ar os e. See U ni t ed St at es v. A lb e rs , 9 3 F .3 d 1 4 6 9 , 1 4 8 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ).- 21 -

A ccor di ng t o M cI nni s , T ur ol l a’ s i m pr operm ot i ve ar os e i n Sept ember2000, im m e d iate lya f

ter th e tele p h o n e c a ll b e tw e e n h e r a n d T h u ll an d o n c e T h u ll ag a in beca m e Turol l a’ s di r ectbos s . Pr i ort o thatconver s at i on, M cI nni s had no document ed per form ance i s s ues . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es that , aft erthatt el ephone cal l and upon Thul l ’ s r eturn t o Pagos a Spr i ngs , T ur ol l a i nform ed M cI nni s thathe had s poken w i th T hul l aboutherand Turol l a’ s att i tude t ow ar d herchange d abrupt l yaft ert hatconver s at i on. T he emai l s offe r ed byFai r fi el d ar e dat ed O ct ober17, O ct ober31, and N ovember4, 2000. T hus , the pr emot i ve r equi r ement forpr i orcons i s t ents t at ement s w as notm etbeca us e the emai l s w er e w r i t t en af t er th e c o n flict b e tw e e n T u ro lla a n d M c In n is a ro se . T h e d istric t co u rt th e re fo re d id notabus e i t s di s cr et i on byr efus i ng t o admi tthe emai l s as pr i or - cons i s t ent s ta te m e n ts .

b. N onhe ar s ay be c aus e not offe r e d for t he t r ut h of t he m a tter a sser ted b u t m er ely to sh o w F a irfi eld ’s state of m i nd Fai r fi el d al t ernat i vel yar gues t hatt he emai l s w er e admi s s i bl e as nonhear s ay to sh o w its a g e n ts’ s tate s o f m in d in m a k in g th e d e c isio n to d isc h a rg e M c In n is and nott o pr ove the truth of the mat t eras s er t ed i n the emai l s . W e have- 22 -

pr evi ous l yhel d thatout - of- courts t at ement s m aypr oper l ybe admi t t ed t o s how an empl oy er ’ s s t at e of mi nd i n m aki ng empl oym entdeci s i ons . See Faul knerv. Super V a lu S to re s, In c ., 3 F .3 d 1 4 1 9 , 1 4 3 4 -3 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (h o ld in g a d m iss ib le cert ai n o ut- of-cou rtst at em ents w hich w ere “offered t o est abli sh [de fend ant’ s]
s t at e of mi nd i n m aki ng i t s hi r i ng deci s i ons and [w er e] notoffe r ed forthe truth of the mat t eras s ert ed”) ; s ee a l s o St ani ew i cz v. B eec ham, I nc. , 687 F. 2d 526, 530- 31 ( 1s tC i r . 1982) ( perm i t t i ng, i n an age di s cr i m i nat i on cas e, the s upervi s ort o t es t i fy
a s to c o n v e rsa tio n s w ith th ird p a rties a b o u t p lain tiff b e c a u se “ th e yw e re o ffe re d to s how [the s upervi s or ’ s ] i nt enti n cal l i ng t he meet i ng w i th [the pl ai nt i ff] w hi ch
u lti m a telyre su lted in th e re sig n a tio n o f [ p lain tiff]” ); H a d d a d v . L o c k h e e d C a l. C orp. , 720 F. 2d 1454, 1456 ( 9th C i r . 1983) ( perm i t t i ng, i n an age and nat i onal
o rig in d isc rim in a tio n c a se , m a n a g e m e n t w itn e ss e s to tes tifya b o u t co m p lain ts
r ece i ved aboutpl ai nt i ff be caus e the t es t i m ony“w as r el evanti n demonstr at i ng [the
em p loy er’s] no n -discrim inato ryinten t i n it s em p loym en t prac ti ce s”). T u roll a’s emai l s , how ever , w er e onl ys entt o T hul l orM i kul a orboth. N ei therof thes e men m ad e the d ec isi o n to term ination M cIn n is. A s a re su lt , the s tat em en ts w ere i nad m i ssi ble t o sho w F ai rfi el d’s s t at e of m i nd i n d i schargi ng M cInni s becau se there is no ev iden ce the d ec isi o n -m ak er resp o n sible fo r M cIn n is’ s t erm i nati on — G ray— ever r ead o r l earned o f t he co ntent s of t he em ai l s.

c. R ul e 803( 3) s t at e of m i nd ex cept i onR ul e 803( 3) pr ovi des that“s t at ement [s ] of the dec l ar ant ’ s t hen exi s t i ng 12 s t at e of mi nd, emot i on, s ens at i on, orphy s i cal condi t i on ( s uch as i nt ent , pl an, m ot i ve, des i gn, m ent al fee l i ng, pai n, and bodi l yheal th) ” ar e “notexcl uded byt he hear s ayrul e, even though t he dec l ar anti s avai l abl e as a w i tnes s . ” Fed. R . E vi d. 8 0 3 (3 ). T o th e e x ten t th e sta tem e n ts o f m e m o ryo r b e lief

w e re n o t o ffe re d to 13 (continued...) - 23 - Fai r fi el d al s o ar gues thatthe emai l s w er e admi s s i bl e underFed. R . E vi d. 8 0 3 (3 ), th e sta te o f m in d e x c e p tio n to th e g e n e ra l h e a rsa y ru le. T h a t R u le 12 expr es s l yexcl udes fr om the exc ept i on “a s t at ementof m emoryorbel i ef t o pr ove the fa ctr emem ber ed orbel i eved unl es s i tr el at es t o the exe cut i on, r evoca t i on, id e n tific a tio n , o r te rm s o f d e c lar a n t’s w ill .” F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 3 (3 ). B a se d o n th is l i m i t at i on t o the excep t i on , w e hav e held that 803(3) “doe s not per m i tt he w i tness t o r el at e anyof the dec l ar ant ’ s s t at ement s as t o w hy[the dec l ar ant ] hel d the p a rticu lar sta te o f

m in d , o r w h a t [ th e d e c lar a n t] m ig h t h a v e b e liev e d th a t w o u ld h a v e in d u c e d th e sta te o f m in d .” U n ited S tate s v . Jo e , 8 F .3 d 1 4 8 8 , 1 4 9 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T ur ol l a’ s emai l s cont ai n hear s ays t at ement s expr es s i ng hi s t hen exi s t i ng s t at e of mi nd ( i . e. , “I hat e t o be i n thi s pr edi cament ; ” “I am atm yw i t s end; ” “I
am con cerned fo r the fu ture”) as w el l as ass ert i on s of w hyT urol l a had t hese fe e l i n g s ( i . e . , d e s c r i p t i o n s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s , i n t e r a c t i o n s , i n c i d e n t s , a n d p r o b l e ms h e w a s a lleg e d lyh a v in g w ith M c In n is). T h e sta tem e n ts e x p lain in g w h yT u ro lla h a d th e s e fe e lin g s a re e x p re s s ly o u ts id e th e s ta te -o f-m in d e x c e p tio n . S e e J o e , 8 13(...continued) 13 pr ove the fa ctr emem ber ed orbel i eved, theyar e i rr el evantbeca us e, as di s cus s ed ear l i er , T ur ol l a di d notm ake the dec i s i on t o t erm i nat e M cI nni s and ther e i s no evidence thatG rayever r ead o r l earned o f t he co ntent s of t he em ai l s. - 24 - F .3 d a t 1 4 9 3 (h o ld in g th a t v ictim ’s h e a rsa ysta tem e n t th a t sh e w a s “ a f ra id
s om et i m es ” w as admi s s i bl e underR ul e 803( 3) butthatr emai nderof s t at ement i ndi cat i ng “w hys he w as afr ai d” w as “cl ear l ya s t at ementof m emoryorbel i ef” and “w as notadmi s s i bl e underR ul e 803( 3) ”) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ; U ni t ed St at es v . T o m e, 61 F . 3 d 1 4 4 6 , 1 4 5 3 -54 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) (ho lding that a c h il d ’s sta tem e n ts th a t sh e d id n o t w a n t to re tu rn to h e r fa th e r “ b e c a u se m yfa th e r g e ts drunk and he thi nks I ’ m hi s w i fe” w er e nota s t at e- of- m i nd expr es s i on beca us e the fi r s ts t at ementw as notan expr es s i on of fe arand the s econd w as a “s t at ementof
m em o ryto p rov e the fa ct rem em b ere d ”); see a lso F ed . R . E v id. 80 3 (3) a d v isory
comm i t t ee’ s not e ( “The excl us i on of ‘ s t at ement s of m emoryorbel i ef t o pr ove the fac tr emem ber ed orbel i eved’ i s nece s s aryt o avoi d the vi r tual des truct i on of the h e a rsa yru le w h ich w o u ld o th e rw ise re su lt fro m a llo w in g sta te o f m in d , p ro v a b le bya hea r s ays t at ement , t o s erve as the bas i s foran i nfer ence of the happe ni ng of the e v en t w h ich p rod u ce d the s tat e o f m ind . ”). F a irfield d o e s n o t ar g u e , n o r d o e s th e e v id e n c e su g g e st, th a t F a irfield offe r ed t o r edac tt he i nadmi s s i bl e por t i on of the emai l s . N everthel es s , t o the ext entthatthe courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on bynotadmi t t i ng the emai l s i n r edac t ed- 25 -

fo rm , an ye rro r d id n o t p reju d ice F a irfield fo r th e re a so n s d e sc rib e d m o re f u lly b e l o w. d . B e st E v id e n c e R u le F in a lly , F a irfield a rg u e s th a t th e e x c lu sio n o f T u ro lla’s e m a ils p re v e n ted it fr om pr es ent i ng “the bes tevi dence of hi s t rue mot i ve. ” Fed. R . E vi d. 1002, know n as the bes tevi dence rul e, s t at es t hat“[t ] o pr ove the cont entof a w r i t i ng, re c o rd in g , o r p h o to g ra p h , the o rig in a l w riting , rec o rd in g , o r p h o to g ra p h is
r equi r ed, exce ptas ot herw i s e pr ovi ded i n thes e rul es orbyA ctof C ongr es s . ” The bes tevi dence rul e i s notan exc ept i on t o the gene r al rul e exc l udi ng the admi s s i on of hea r s ay . I ns t ead, [w ] hi l e R ul e 1002 l i m i t s t he admi s s i bi l i tyof evi dence offe r ed t o pr ove the cont ent s of a w r i t i ng . . . s at i s fy i ng R ul e 1002 does notm ean that t he evi d e n c e i n q u e s t i o n i s n e c e s s a r i l ya d mi s s i b l e . Th e e v i d ence r emai ns s ubj ectt o otheradmi s s i bi l i tyobj ect i ons underthe E vi dence R ules and t he C on st i tuti on . S pecifi cal l y , the ev i den ce fre q u e ntl yal so r ai s es admi s s i bi l i tyi s s ues underthe rul es r egul ati n g hear s ayand authent i cat i on. 31 C har l es A . W r i ghtand V i ct orJ . G ol d, Feder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e § 7183 ( 2000) ( footnot es om i t t ed) . T her efor e, Fai r fi el d’ s cl ai m t hatt he emai l s ar e the bes tevi dence of Turol l a’ s m ot i vat i on does nots uppor ti t s ar gum entt hatt he d i s tr i c tc o u r ta b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n b y e x c l u d i n g t h a te v i d e n c e a s h e a r s a y.

2. W het her any err or w as prej udi ci al- 26 -

A ss u m in g e x c lu sio n o f th e e m a ils, in w h o le o r in p a rt, w a s e rro n e o u s, th e ir excl us i on di d notpr ej udi ce Fai r fi el d. T ur ol l a t es t i fi ed atl ength abouthi s s t at e of
m ind , h is al lege d n o n retali atorym o ti v e, an d h is pro b lem s w ith M cIn n is’ s p e rfo rm a n c e , w h ic h is th e s a m e s u bje c t m a tte r c o n ta in e d in th e e x c lu d e d e m a ils . T her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatFai r fi el d’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s w er e affec t ed bythe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r efus al t o admi tt he ac tual document s i nt o evi dence . See Pol y s v. T r ans - C ol or ado A i r l i nes , I nc. , 941 F. 2d 1404, 1407 n. 3 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( r ecogni zi ng t hata di s tr i ctcourt ’ s err ori n excl udi ng evi dence i s harm l es s i f the excl uded evi dence w oul d nothave a dded anythi ng new t o the evi dence al r eady pr es ent ed ori f the out come of t he tr i al w oul d have be en the s ame i f the exc l uded
ev iden ce h ad b ee n ad m itted). A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d thati tw as notan abus e of di s cr et i on forthe di s tr i ct courtt o excl ude the emai l s , and that , even i f i tw as , anyerr ordi d notpr ej udi ce Fai r fi el d’ s r i ght s beca us e the authort es t i fi ed t o the s ubs t ance of the exc l uded emai l s . W e ther efor e affi r m t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s excl us i on of thi s evi dence . II. M cInn i s’ s C ross- A p p eal I ssues M cI nni s has cr os s - appea l ed, chal l engi ng the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s cos t s , fr ont pay , and att orney s ’ fee s aw ar ds . R evi ew i ng eac h aw ar d foran abus e of d iscreti o n , see R o d ri g u ez v . W h it ing F arm s, Inc . , 3 6 0 F . 3 d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 9 0 (10 th C ir . 2004) ( cos t s ) ; Sm i th v. D i ffe e For d- L i ncol n- M er cury , I nc. , 298 F. 3d 955, 964F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 4 (d ) p ro v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt: 14 E xceptw hen expr es s pr ovi s i on ther efor i s m ade ei ther i n a st atut e of the U ni t ed St at es ori n thes e rul es , cos t s otherthan att or ney s ’ fee s s hal l be al l ow ed as of

cou rs e to th e prevai l i ng partyun l ess the co urtotherw i se dir ect s. - 27 - ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( fr ontpay ) ; C havez v. T hom as & B et t s C orp. , 396 F. 3d 1088, 1 1 0 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( a tto rn e y s ’ fe e s ), w e re v e rs e . A . C o sts T he d i stri ctcou rtordered “each partyshal l payher or i t s ow n co st s”
w ith o u t pro v iding an yrea so n fo r i ts de cisi o n . M cIn n is r eq u ested that the c o u rt al t eroramend i t s or derand aw ar d hercos t s , butt he di s tr i ctcourtal s o deni ed that
m o tio n w ith o u t ex p lan a tio n . In C a n tre ll v . In ter n a tio n a l B o a rd o f E lec tric W o rk e rs, L o c a l 2 0 2 1 , 6 9 F .3 d 4 5 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (e n b a n c ), w e h e ld th a t a d istric t co u rt’s d isc re tio n u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 4 (d ) is re stra in e d in th a t “it 14
m us tpr ovi de a va l i d r eas on fornotaw ar di ng cos t s t o a pr evai l i ng par ty . ” I d. at 459; s ee a l s o R odr i guez, 360 F. 3d at1190. Fai r fi el d does notdi s put e that M c In n is w a s th e p re v a ili n g p a rtya n d d o e s n o t o bjec t to a re m a n d o n th is iss u e in l i ghtof C antr el l . W e agr ee w i th the part i es t hatr emand i s appr opr i at e s o thatt he di s tr i ctcourtm aym ake the r equi r ed fi ndi ngs and pr ovi de a va l i d r eas on for deny i ng M cI nni s cos t s s houl d i tdeci de on r emand t o do s o; how ever , w e not e that- 28 -

“R ul e 54 cr eat es a pr es um pt i on t hatthe di s tr i ctcour tw i l l aw ar d the pr evai l i ng p a rt yc o s ts .” R o d ri g u e z , 3 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 0 .

B . F ront P ay M c In n is a ls o a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f f ro n t p a yd a m a g e s . “Fr ontpayi s s i m pl ym oneyaw ar ded forl os tcompensa t i on dur i ng the per i od betw een j udgm entand r ei ns t at ementori n l i eu of r ei ns t at ement ” t o m ake the p lai n ti ff w h o le. A b u an v . L ev el 3 C o m m c’n , Inc . , 3 5 3 F . 3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 7 6 (10 th C ir . 2003) ( al t er at i on, quot at i ons , ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A l though r ei ns t at ementi s t he pr efe rr ed r emedyunderT i t l e V I I , i t“maynotbe appr opr i at e . . . w hen the
e m p lo y e r h a s e x h ib ite d s u c h e x tr e m e h o s tilit yth a t, a s a p ra c tic a l m a tte r, a pr oduct i ve and a m i cabl e w or ki ng r el at i ons hi p w oul d be i m pos s i bl e. ” E. E . O . C . v. Prudent i al Fed. Sav. and Loan A s s ’ n, 763 F. 2d 1166, 1172 ( 10th C i r . 1985) ; s ee al s o Fi t zger al d v. Si r l oi n St ockade , I nc. , 624 F. 2d 945, 957 ( 10th C i r . 1980) (ho lding that d en ial o f re instatem en t w as a p p rop ri ate in a T it le V II case w h ere th e re w a s a n a tm o sp h e re o f h o stility ). H e re , rein sta tem e n t w a s n o t a s u itab leFai r fi el d ar gues thatfr ontpayi s notavai l abl e bec aus e M cI nni s never 15 r eques t ed r ei ns t at ement . H ow ever , “[a ] pl ai nt i ff ne ed not‘ r eques tr ei ns t at ement as a p rereq u isi te t o o b tai n ing fro n t payw h ere the e v iden ce rev ea ls an atm o sp h ere of hos t i l i ty . ’ ” Prudent i al , 763 F. 2d at1173 n. 2 ( quot i ng Fi t zger al d, 624 F. 2d at 9 5 7 ). - 29 - o p tio n . A s th e d istric t co u rt fo u n d , “it w o u ld b e d e v a sta tin g to th e p lain tiff to 15 be r ei ns t at ed w i th Fai r fi el d. ” “The am ount[of f

r ontpay ] , i f any , i s s eti n the court ’ s di s cr et i on. ” W hi t t i ngt on v. N or dam G r oup I nc. , 429 F. 3d 986, 1000 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . T he fo llo w in g fa c to rs a re re lev a n t in a ss e ss in g su c h a n a w a rd : w or k l i fe e xpect ancy , s al aryand bene fi t s atthe t i m e of t erm i nat i on, any pot ent i al i ncr eas e i n s al arythr ough r egul arpr om ot i ons and costof li v ing adjustm en t, th e re aso n ab le av ail ab il ityo f o ther w o rk o p p o r tu n i t i e s , th e p e r i o d wi th i n wh i c h th e p l a i n t i ff ma yb e c o me re-em p loy ed w ith rea so n ab le effo rt s, an d m etho d s to d isco u n t anyaw ard to n e t p re s e n t v a lu e . I n fo rm ul at i ng a fr ont - payaw ar d the di s tr i ctcourtm aycons i der al l evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al conce rni ng the i ndi vi dual i zed c irc u m sta n c e s o f

b o th th e e m p lo y e e a n d e m p lo y e r, b u t itm u st a v o id g ra n tin g th e p lain tiff

a w in d fa ll. W hi t t i ngt on, 429 F. 3d at1000- 01 ( ci t at i ons , quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T he di s tr i ct court , how ever , di d notcons i derthes e fa ct or s i n deny i ng M cI nni s fr ontpayand i ns t ead s i m pl ynot ed thatM cI nni s “gota j ob w her e s he’ s comfort abl e and doi ng w el l and s eems t o m e thatthatw oul d be much bet t erforhert han r ei ns t at ement . ” T h is w a s a n e rr o r o f

la w a n d , c o n s e q u e n tly, a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n .I n N ovember2001, M cI nni s obt ai ned a pa r t - t i m e cons ul t i ng pos i t i on 16 w ith A n g el F ir e R eso rt s in N ew M ex ico, ea rnin g $ 9 . 7 5 p er h o u r. A n g el F ir e R e s o rt s e x p a n d e d th is jo b to c re a te a s a la ri e d p o s itio n fo r $ 2 8 ,0 0 0 p e r ye a r. H o w e v e r, th is e m p lo ym e n t w a s n o t co m p a ra b le to h e r e m p lo ym e n t at F a irfield beca us e i tpai d l es s and r equi r ed hert o, atl eas tper i odi cal l y , comm ut e t o A ngel F ir e , w h ic h w a s lo c a te d 3 .5 h o u rs f ro m P a g o s a S p ri n g s . - 30 - M cI nni s ’ s vocat i onal expertt es t i fi ed thatM cI nni s has abs ol ut el yno pr os pect s of att ai ni ng a payl evel equi val entt o the pays he r ece i ved atFai r fi el d. 16 Fai r fi el d i s the l ar ges tr es or ti n the Pagos a Spr i ngs ar ea, and the j ob m arketi n t he
ar ea i s veryl i m i t ed. A s a r es ul t , t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatM cI nni s w i l l be
a d v e rs e ly affe c te d b yth e te rm in a tio n o f h e r e m p lo ym e n t w ith F a ir fie ld . W e ther efor e r ever s e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of fr ontpayand r emand fort he di s t r i ct c o u rt to d e te rm in e in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e th e p ro p e r a w a rd . C . A t t orneys’ F ees W i th r egar d t o t he att orney s ’ fee s aw ar d, M cI nni s ar gues on cr os s - appea l thatthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by1) deny i ng herdi s coveryof F a irfield ’s a tto rn e y s’ fe e s a n d c o sts ; 2 ) d e n y in g h e r th e o p p o rtu n ityto re p lyin supp ortof h er m oti on for at t orney s’ fees; and 3) r edu ci ng her r equ est ed att orney s’ fee aw ar d byhal f.

1. D e ni al of

di s c ov e r y co nc e r ni ng Fai r fi e l d’ s bi l l i ng r e c or ds B efor e the di s tr i ctcourt , M cI nni s s oughtt o di s coverFai r fi el d’ s bi l l i ng r ecor ds , i ncl udi ng att orney s ’ bi l l i ng r at es , cos t s , and hour s expende d, as r el evant- 31 -

to th e re a so n a b len e ss o f h e r o w n c o u n se ls’ fe e s b e c a u se , as sh e c o n ten d s, it demonstr at es Fai r fi el d’ s m aneuve r i ng and pr ovi des compar at i ve i nform at i on aboutr eas onabl e r at es , fee s , and hour s expende d i n thi s cas e. W hi l e w e have l ong “ac cept ed the pr opos i t i on thatone of the fa ct or s us eful i n eval uat i ng the
r eas onabl enes s of the numberof att or neyhour s i n a fe e r eques ti s the r es pons es nece s s i t at ed byt he maneuver i ng of the others i de, ” R obi ns on v. C i tyof Edm ond, 160 F. 3d 1275, 1284 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) , M cI nni s ’ s m ot i on for att orney s ’ fee s det ai l s the degr ee t o w hi ch Fai r fi el d’ s al l eged maneuver i ng affect ed heratt orney s ’ fee s . T hus , al though M cI nni s cont ends thatevi dence of Fai r fi el d’ s att orney s ’ fee s and expe ns es ar e r el evantt o the r eas onabl enes s of her
c o u n se ls’ fe e s, th e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e d istric t co u rt w a s n o t in tim a tely
aw ar e of Fai r fi el d’ s m aneuve r i ng and the t enac i tyw i th w hi ch Fai r fi el d l i t i gat ed thi s cas e. See C i tyof R i ver s i de v. R i ver a, 477 U . S. 561, 580 n. 11 ( 1986) ( “The governm entcannotl i t i gat e t enac i ous l yand then be he ar d t o compl ai n aboutthe ti m e n ec essa ri lysp en t bythe p lai n ti ff in resp o n se.”) (qu o tat ion s o m itted). F urtherm ore, M cInni s has not j ust i fi ed d i scoveryof F ai rfi el d’s att orney s’ bi l l i ng r ecor ds bey ond heral l egat i ons of m aneuve r i ng. W e ther efor e ca nnots ay th a t th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yd e n y in g M c In n is’s m o tio n to c o mp e l d i s c o v e ryo f

t h i s e v i d e n c e . I n a n ye v e n t , fo rth e r e a s o n s d e s c r i b e d b e l o w, M c In n is w ill h a v e a n o p p o rtu n ityo n re m a n d to re p lyto F a irfield ’s c h a llen g e to- 32 -

the reasonab l eness of h er att orney s’ ho url yrat es and ti m e exp end ed in this case w i th, forexampl e, an expe r tr eports uppor t i ng heratt orney s ’ fee pet i t i on and/ or aff i davi t s fr om l ocal att orney s r efl ect i ng t hei rcus t om aryfee forw or k i n s i m i l ar c a s e s . 2 . D e n ia l o f th e o p p o r tu n ity to r e p ly M cI nni s ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on bydeny i ng her the oppor tuni tyt o r epl yi n s uppor tof herm ot i on foratt orney s ’ fee s . T he di s t r i ct court ’ s l ocal rul es pr ovi de that“[t ] he movi ng partym ayfi l e a r epl yw i thi n 15 day s aft erthe fi l i ng dat e of the r es pons e, ors uch l es s erorgr eat ert i m e as t he
co u rtm ayall o w . ” D . C . C o lo. L . C iv. R . 7 . 1 (C ). W e re v iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s appl i cat i on of i t s l ocal rul es forabus e of di s cr et i on. See H ernandez v. G eor ge, 7 9 3 F .2 d 2 6 4 , 2 6 8 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). O urr evi ew of the di s tr i ctcourtdocketi ndi cat es t he fol l ow i ng s equenc e of event s : M cI nni s fi l ed herm ot i on foratt or ney s ’ fee s and expe r tw i tnes s fee s on Jul y23 , 20 04 . F ai rfi el d’s r espon se w as fi l ed o n A ug ust5. U nd er the local rul es, th e n , M c I n n i s h a d u n t i l Au g u s t2 0 t o fi l e a r e p l y . S e e D. C. Co l o . L. Ci v . R. 7. 1( C ) . O n A ugus t10, M cI nni s fi l ed a mot i on forext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e a r epl y . O n A ugus t12, the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed M cI nni s ’ s m ot i on foran ext ens i on i n an or derthats t at ed, w i thoutfur therexpl anat i on: “FU R T H E R O R D E R E D t hat P lai n ti ff ’s req u est t o rep lyreg ard ing h er M o ti o n fo r A tt o rne y s’ F ee s an d E x p ert- 33 -

W i tnes s Fees i s deni ed. ” Then, on A ugus t19, a daybefor e herr epl yw as due
un der the g eneral l ocal rule t i m e peri od , the co urtenter ed it s aw ard of att orney s’ fees. W ith o u t an ye x p lan a tio n fo r its o rd e r, d e n y in g M c In n is th e o p p o rtu n ityto rep lyev en tho u g h sh e w as e x p resslyau tho ri ze d to d o so u n d er the d istri ct co u rt ’s lo c a l ru les w a s “ a n a rb itrar y , ca p ric io u s, w h im sic a l, or m a n ife stlyu n re a so n a b le ju d g m e n t.” S c h ri e r v . U n iv . o f C o lo ., 4 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 5 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Ac c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e th a tt h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n , a n d we r e m a n d w i th i n s tru c t i o n s t o a l l o w M c I n n i s th e o p p o r tu n i ty t o r e p l y.

3. R educt i on ofreques t ed at t orneys’ fee aw ard B eca us e w e ar e r emandi ng t o al l ow M cI nni s t he opportuni tyt o r epl y , w e do notaddr es s w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on bydecr eas i ng M cI nni s ’ s att orney s ’ fee s aw ar d. H ow ever , w e not e thatw e s ee nothi ng in tr in s ic a lly w ro n g w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s c u rr e n t a w a rd o f a tto rn e y s ’ fe e s . W hi l e the di s tr i ctcourtm us tart i cul at e r eas ons fori t s fee aw ar d, Publ i c Serv. C o. v. C ont ’ l C as . C o. , 26 F. 3d 1508, 1520 ( 10th C i r . 1994) , “[a ] gener al r educt i on of h o u rs c laim e d in o rd e r to a c h iev e w h a t th e c o u rt d e ter m in e s to b e a re a so n a b le
n u m b e r is n o t an e rro n e o u s m e th o d , so lo n g a s th e re is s u fficie n t re a so n fo r its- 34 -

u s e ,” M a re s v . C re d it B u re a u o f R a to n , 8 0 1 F .2 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). H er e, the di s tr i ctcourtfound both the numberof hour s expende d on t hi s l i t i gat i on a n d th e h o u rlyra te c h a rg e d b yM c In n is’s a tto rn e y s to b e u n re a so n a b le, a n d it there fo re red u ce d b o th. A d d it ion all y , w e n o te th at ulti m ately“a n ap p ell ate c o u rt play s [only ] a ‘ l i m i t ed rol e’ i n revi ew i ng a dis tri ctcou rt ’s aw ard of att orney s’ fe es a n d co sts, an d d efere n ce is give n to a d istri ct co u rt ’s j u d g m en t on the m att er, sin c e th e c o u rt is in a b e tter p o sitio n to a ss e ss th e c o u rse o f lit ig a tio n a n d q u a lity of w or k. ” G ambl e, Si m m ons & C o. v. K err - M cG ee Corp. , 175 F. 3d 762, 773- 74 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). H o w e v e r, o n c e th e d istric t co u rt c o n sid e rs M c In n is’s re p ly br i ef, i tw i l l be i n a bett erpos i t i on t o cons i deranew t he mat t erof the aw ar d of at t orney s’ fees.

CO NC L US I ON F o r th e fo re g o in g re a so n s, w e A F F IR M th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n o n a ll appea l i s s ues , R E V E R SE on al l cr os s - appea l i s s ues , and R E M A N D forfur ther pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on.