## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11
- 1484 S US AN B LU E , P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. I NTERNATI ONA L B R OT H E R H OO D O F E LECTRICAL W O RKERS L OC AL U NI ON 159, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 09 -cv-395 -wmc

—Wi ll iam M. Co nley, Chief Judge.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 20, 2011

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 2, 2012

Befo re R OV NER, W OO D , a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. I n 200 9, S usan Bl ue sued her f or m erem plo yer, Inter nati onalBro ther hood o fEl ectr i cal W or k e r s , Lo c a l1 5 9 ( I BEW) , a l l e g i ngr e t a l i a t i o n f o ro pposi ng the di scr i m i nati on of an A fri can- A m er i can el ectr i ci an. The j ury f oun d i n f avo r ofBl ue and awarded he r $ 2 0 2 , 3 9 6
. 7 6 i n dam age s. I BE W f i l ed sev er al post- tri alm oti ons w i th the di str i ct c ourt, se eking a new2 N o. 11
- 1484 tr i alo r re l i effro m the j ud gm ent o n the gr ounds that the dist ri ct j ud ge er re d in adm i tting cer tain ev idence an d tha t th e weight o fthe e vi den ce f av o r ed I BEW
. The di s t r i c tc o ur tdeni e d I BEW’ s mo t i o ns , a nd n o w I BEW appeal s. A l though, as we explain bel ow, our j uri sdic ti on o n thi s appe ali s l i m i te d, we fi nd no e r r o rw ith the d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n s , a n d w e th e r e f o r e a ffi r m.
I F o ro ve r3 0 y ea r s, Bl ue was a n a dm i ni st r at i ve a ss i st an t at I BE W
. There i s a m ple ev i dence that Bl ue’ s workwas excel l ent: U ni on m em ber s fre quentl y r el i ed on Bl ue f or inf or m ati on on unio n benefi ts or obl i gat i ons; her co ll eagues descr ibed heras pro fess i onal, kno w l edgeabl e, and r el i abl e; and a t l eas t one f or m ersuperv i sordescr ibed her j ob perf or m ance a s “ou tst anding. ” Duri ng the ev ents at is s u e i n th is c as e, B lu e’s su p er vis or atIB E W w as B illy H ar re lso n, an d u n til t h e c o n te st ed p er iod , th er e is no i nd i c a t i o n tha tHa r r e l s o n e v e rc r i t i c i z e d o rdi sciplined her. I n ear l y 2 006 A l exander Phi l l i ps fi l ed a c om plain t of ra ce d i scr i m i nati on a gainst I BE W with the M adis on E qu al Op p ortu nities Com m issi on (M E O C ). Ph il li p s’s co mpl a i nta l l e g e d tha th i s i nfo r mat i o n wa s r e m ove d fro m the I BE W r efer ra lbo ok and his uni on init iat i on fee w as re tu r ne d t o hi m b ec au se o fhi s r ac e ( Afr i ca nA m er i can)
. Bl ue l earned ofthe com pla i nt’ s co ntents afte ri t was m ai l ed to the I BEW o ffi ce . Aro und the sam e t i m e, Bl ue al so disc ove re d that Harr el son had al l owed a w hi te el ectr i ci an to si gn the r efer ra lbo okN o. 11
- 1484 3

w ith ou t p ay in g h is in itia tio n fe e. C on c er n ed ab ou t t h is di s pa r i t y, Blue que s t i o ne d Ha r r e l s o n ab o utthe a ppar en t di sc r i m i na ti o n. H ar re l son re tal iated: Blue prese nted evi dence that sh e w as stripp ed of he r essen tial j ob d u ties, de nied overtim e o pp or tuni ti es, and subj ecte d to a ho sti l e workenv ir o nme nt . As P hi l l i ps ’ s c a s e a tthe MEOC pr o g r e s s e d, H ar r el so n’ s ha r sht r ea tmento fBl ue i nt en sif i ed. The M EO C m ai l ed sev er alq u esti onnai re s t o I BE W to be fil l ed out by sel ecte d w or ker s, i ncl ud i ng Bl ue. H ar re l son d em an d ed th at B lue go throu gh I B E W ’s attorney before answe r i ngthe MEOC’ s que s t i o ns . Blue , h o we v e r, was w or ri ed that the att or ney w oul d m odi fy her answers, and so, o n A pri l6, 20 06, she m ai l ed herr esponse s d irectly to th e M E O C an d sen t a cop y to I B E W ’s la w y er. A t tha t po i nt, Ha r r e l s o n b e g a n t o di s c i pl i ne Bl ue f or m inori nfr acti ons. H e a ccused hero fbeing “e xcessi vely t a r d y ” d e s p i t e e v i d e n c e th a tB l u e w a s u s u a l l y o n t i me and neverm or e than five m inutes l ate . On Febr uary14, 2007, the M EO C scheduled a pu bl i c hear i ng o n Phi ll ips’ s ca se , a nd a few da y s l at er, I BEW t o o kf o ur d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s a g a i n s tBl ue

— allof w hich w ere ev en tu al l y v ac at ed byHar r el so n’ s su cc es so r . Ov er the next se ver alm onths, H ar re l son’ s ca m pai gn o fr eta l i at i o n e s c a l a t e d: Blue r e c e i v e d a ddi t i o na lf o r maldi sci plinarym eas ures , she w as suspended witho ut pay, a nd s he wa s dr i v e n t o t a k e me di c al lea ve t o e s c a pe the em oti onalst re ss w ro ught byherwork envi ro nm ent. Bl ue fi na l l y fi l ed hero wn c o mpl a i ntwi th the MEOC, al l eging r eta l i ati on, and s h e late r bro ught hercas e t o th e Di st r i ctCo ur t f o rthe W es te r n Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n.4 N o. 11
- 1484 Befo re tr i al, I BE W m ove d to excl ud e fr om ev i dence the M EO C’s fi l e o n Phil l i ps’s co m pla i nt. The d ist ric t co ur t den i ed th e m o ti on, a nd f o urdo cument s fr o m the fi l e were used at tr i al : Phi l l ip s’s or i gi nalco m pla i nt; Blue’ s s tat em ent; the M EO C’s fi nd i ng o fpro babl e ca u se; an d the M EOC’ s n otice o fhe ar i ng . Bl ue us ed th es e do cum en ts , a l ong w i th o therev i dence, to dem onst ra te that H ar r el so n h ad a m o ti ve t o r et al i at e ag ainst B l ue a nd to prove the causall i nk be tw een he r prot ecte d ac ti vi ti es and her advers e e m plo ym ent a cti ons. The j ury cre dit ed her evi dence and, o n A ugust 5 , 20 10, it r et urned a j ud gm ent in f avo r ofBl ue. The dis tri ct c ourtf or m al l y e nter ed j ud gm ent a gainst I BEW o n Aug us t 9 , 2 0 1 0
. I t o r i g i na l l y s e t a de a dl i ne o f Augus t 25 f o ra l lpo st
- tr i almot i o ns , b ut, withou t a ny ob j ec tio n by B l u e , t h e c ou rtex te n d ed th is d ea d lin e in r e s p o n s e t o a mo t i o n b y I B E W. O n S e p t e mb e r1 0 , I BEW filed two m oti ons, se eking ei therj ud gm ent a s a m att er o f la w un d er Fed eral R ule of C ivi l Proc ed ure 50(b), or a ne w tri al und er Fed eral Ru le ofCivil Proc e d ure 59(a). The d ist ri ct c ourtdeni ed both m oti ons on F ebr uary3, 20 11 , an d on M ar c h 1, IB E W filed its N ot ice of A p p ea l.
II B e f o r e tu r n i n gt o th e m e r i t s o fI B E W’ s a p p e a l, we m u st c lar ify th e sc op e of ou r j u ris d ict ion . W e g en er ally have j uri sdic ti on t o heara case o nl y whe re a noti ce ofappealwas fi l ed w ith in 30 days ofthe entr y o fj ud gm en t. 28 U .S.C . § 21 07 (a); F ED . R. A PP . P . 4(a)( 1)(A ); B o w les v . R u ss el l , 5 5 1 U. S
. 2 0 5 , 2 1 4 ( 2 0 0 7 )
. Th e t i mel y fi l i ng o fN o. 11
- 1484 5
c er ta inp os t-t ria l m o tio n s, h ow ev er , tolls th e s ta rtof th is 30- day per i od unti lthe re soluti on o ftho se m oti ons. Se e F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a )(4) ( A )
. In thi s ca se, the dist ri ct c ou rten te re d j u d gm en t o n A u gu st 9 , 20 10 , bu t IB E W d id n otfile its N ot ice of A p p ea l un til M ar c h 1, 20 1 1 . Th is is ob vio u sly ou ts id e t h e 3 0-d ay p er iod . Th e q u es tio n is w hetherI BE W ’ s fi l i ng o fit s p ost- tr i alm oti ons ( sai d to be unde rRul es 5 0(b) a nd 5 9( a) ) op erat ed to e xt en d that ti m e, gi ven the f act that i t fi l ed i ts m oti on s a fter the 2 8- day per i od pro vid ed i n the rul es f orthi s purpose h ad ela p se d . F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 0 ( b ) , 5 9 ( b )
. T hi s i s a ma t ter ofj uri sdic ti onali m port ance. Our autho ri ty to hear I BEW ’ s appe alfr o m the unde r l y i ngj udg m en t tu r ns on wh etherI BE W ’ s m ot ion s tol l ed the ti m e t o appeal un d er Fed eral Ru le ofA p p ell ate P roced ure 4(a)( 4)(A ). W e ho l d that the y d id n ot, and ther ef or e o ur j uri sdic

ti on o n appeal i s l im ited t o a r evi ew o fthe dist ri ct cour t’ s deni alo fI BE W ’ s pos t-j ud gm ent m oti ons.
A The answ erto wh etherI BE W ’ s m oti ons had the nece ssa ry to llin g e ffec t lies d ire c tly in t h e t ex t o f Fe d er al R u le ofA pp e l l a t e P r o c e du r e 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A)
. T ha tr ul e s t a t e s tha t on ly “ tim el y ” m ot ion s h av e t ollin g e ffec t. F ED . R. A PP . P. 4 ( a) ( 4) ( A). In o r dert o b e “ti m ely, ” I BEW ’ s m o ti o ns h ad to be filed w i t h inth e 2 8-d ay p er iod p ro vid ed in Feder al Rules of Civi l Pro cedure 50 and 5 9. T h e fact th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r tp u r p o r t e d t o e x t e n d th e t i me p ast that 28-day period is of no m om en t. C ivil P r oced ure Rule 6( b) ( 2) pro h ibit s a co urt fro m doi ng exac tl y thi s.6 N o. 11
- 1484 B ec au se th es e m ot ion s w er e u n tim ely , th ey d id n otto ll the per i od w i thi n w hi ch I BE W was enti tl ed to fi l e i ts appeal fro m the j u d gm ent. S ee Browde rv. Il l
. D ep’ tof Corre ct i ons , 43 4 U.S
. 25 7, 26 4- 65 ( 1978 ). In an at tem pt to avo i d the apparent hars hness o fthi s r esul t, I BE W sugges ts that w e s houl d fo l l ow the appro ac h o fthe Si xth Cir cui t, wh i ch has sai d that “ w here a p ar ty f or fei ts an o bj ec ti o n t o the unt i m el i ne ss o fa Rul e 59 ( e) mot i o n, th at forfeiture m akes th e m otion ‘ti m ely’ for th e pu rpo se of [ A pp el l ate ] Rule 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) ( i v)
. ” Nat ’ l Ecol ogi ca l Fou ndat i on v. Al exander, 4 9 6 F. 3d 466, 476 (6th Cir. 2007 )
. Because Blue f ai l ed to o bj ect to I BE W ’ s l ate Rule s 5 0 and 59 fi l i ngs, IB EW ar gues that i ts m oti ons shoul d be consi dered “t im el y” on a pp eal
. The Thi rd Ci rcui t s ees th in gs d iffer en tly : I t h as co n c lu d ed th at u n tim ely m oti on s d o not tol lthe peri od f orfi l i ng a noti ce o f appeal “e ven i fthe partyo p posi ng the m oti on di d not obj ect to th e m otion’s un tim eli ne ss an d the d istrict cou rt consi dered the m oti on o n the m er i ts. ” Liz a rdo v. U nited Sta tes , 6 19 F
. 3d 27 3, 2 78 (3d Ci r . 2 01 0)
. In o urv i ew, the Thir d C i rcui t has the bett ero fthe ar gum ent. T h e Six th C irc u it’s ru le str ike s us as u n c om for ta b ly cl o se t o t he “ uni que c i r cumst an ce s” do ct r i ne tha t th e S upr eme Co ur t di sa ppr o ve d i n B o w les, se e 551 U
. S. at 21 4, w h ich is on e g oo d re as on to rejec t it
. Lizar do , wh i ch w as h a n d ed dow n after B o w les, no t su r pr i sing l y c o nf o r m s to the S upr eme Co ur t’ s unde r st an di ngo fthe na ture o fc o ng r e s s i o na l l y p r e s c r ib e d t i me l i mi t s f o ra ppeal s. S ecti on 2 107( a) of T itle 28 o fthe U ni ted S tat es Code provi des thata noti ce o fap p ea l i n ci vi lcas es m ust b e fi l ed wi th i n 3 0 d a y s a ft e rth e e n t r y o fj u d g me n t . AsN o. 11
- 1484 7 th e S upr eme Cou r t ex pl aine d i n B o w les , bec au se on ly Congre ss can dete rm i ne the j uri sdic ti on o fthe l ower federa lco urts , there i s a “l ongs tandi ng” t ra dit i on o f tr eat ing s uch a s tatutor i l y m andated ti m e l i m i t for ta k i ng an appe al as j ur i sdi ct i o na l
. 55 1 U. S
. at 21 0- 11. The 30-d ay rule for civilap p eals, ( w h ich h as been i nc orp orated i nt o Fed eral Ru le ofA p p ell ate P roced ure 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A) ) thu s l i mi t s the a uthor i ty o fthe c o ur t s o fa ppeal s. I m port antl y, the sta tute add re sse s the subj ect of extensi ons ofti m e, and i t doe s no t m en tio n the ki nd o f or der e ntered h er e. Instea d, i t o utl i nes a speci fi c m etho d by w hi ch a partym ay see k a dd i ti onalti m e t o ap p ea lby
“ s ho wi ng. . . e xc us ab l e n e g l e c to rg o o d c a us e . ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 107(c). Thi s r ule , to o, i s j uri sdic ti onal
. S ee B o w les , 55 1 U. S
. a t 21 3 ( “Be ca us e Con gre ss s pec i fi ca l l y l i m i te d the amoun t o ft i m e bywhi cha di st r i ctc o ur t can ext en d the n ot ice -of-a p p ea l p er iod in § 21 0 7(c ), th at lim ita tio n is m ore tha n a sim p le ‘ claim -proce ssing ru le. ’ ”). I f w e w ere to allow IB EW ’ s unti m el y Rul es 50 and 59 m oti ons to t o l lthe ti me t o a pp e a l, we wo ul d b e c r e a t i nga n e w o pportunity forpart i es to extend the ti m e t o ap p eal. S uch a r ule would und er m i ne the bo und s o n appell ate j uri sdi ct ion e stabl i sh ed byCo ng r es s an d c o nt r av en e a “c en tu r y ’ s wor tho fpr ec ede nta nd p r ac ti ce ” r eg ar di ngthe l i m i tat i ons on a n appeal fro m o ne co urt to anothe r. Id. at 209- 10 & n. 2. This re sul t i s co nsi ste nt with our usual tr eat m ent o f unti m el y Rul e 5 9 m oti ons. W e have l ong const rued m oti ons l i ke I BE W ’ s a s m oti ons f orrelie f u nd erFe deral Rule ofCi vi lPro cedure 60. See , e.g., Tr epani e rv. Ci ty of BlueIs l and, 364 F. A p p ’x 26 0, 26 3 (7 th C i r . 201 0); Talan o8 N o. 11
- 1484
v. N orthwest er n M ed. Faculty Fo unda ti on, Inc. , 27 3 F
. 3d 75 7, 76 2 (7 th C ir. 20 01 ); U nite d States v. D eutsc h , 981 F. 2d 299, 300- 01 ( 7th Cir
. 1992 ) ; se e al so Nat ’ l Ecol ogi ca l Fou ndat i on , 4 96 F
. 3d at4 81 ( S ut to n, J
. , c o nc ur r i ngi n the j ud gm ent) ( sugge sting the S i xth Cir cui t deci de Nat’l Ecol ogi ca l Fo unda t i on by const rui ng a l ate Rule 59 m oti on u n d e r R u le 6 0); Rowe v
. As hdown, 17 3 F
. 3d 846, 84 6 ( 2d Cir
. 19 99) ( const rui ng un tim ely Rule 50(b) m oti on a s a Rule 60 m oti on)
. Even tho ugh th e dist ri ct c ourtgr anted I BEW ’ s m o ti o n t o e xt en d t i m e to a d ate beyo nd the 28- day ti m e l i m i t a nd Bl ue m ade no obj ecti on t o tha te xt e ns i o n, i ti s p o s s ib l e tha tB l ue tho ughttha tI BEW was wi l l i ng to f o r g o th e adv an ta g es o f us i ngRul es 5 0 an d 59 i n exchange f or the extr a ti m e avai l abl e f or a m oti on th at, in s u b st an c e, co m es u n d er R u le 6 0. (N ot e t h at R u le 4 ma k e s i tc l e a rth a ta R u l e 6 0 mo t i o n t o l l s th e t i me f orappealo nl y i fi t i s fi l ed no l ate r than 2 8 days a fter j u d gm en t is en te re d . F ED . R. A PP . P. 4 ( a) ( 4) ( A)( vi )
. ) The w ay A p p ella te R u le 4 is st ru c tu re d , an y m ot ion th at is not m enti oned und ersubpart( 4) ( A ) as so m ething that w i l lto l lthe tim e forappeali s a utom ati cal l y handl ed as a R u le 6 0 m ot ion filed be yo n d th e 2 8-d ay p e r i o d . T h is a pp r o a c h “ r e du c e s the c o nfus i o n o ft e n c a us e d when m o va nt s hap ha za r dl y t i tl e an d c ha r ac te r i ze mot i o ns as k i ngtha t a j udg m en t be r e- o pen ed, ” “mak es de ci si o ns ea sie r for bo th j u d ge a n d l i t iga n t,” an d , as w e e x p lain bel ow, “m ake s it eas y forthe Court ofA pp eal s t o be sure wh en i t ha s j u ri sdic ti on o veran a pp eal
. ” He l m v. Res ol ut i on Tru s tCorp. , 43 F. 3d 1163, 1167 (7th C ir. 1995). Th e r e l a t i o n b e t we e n the de a dl i ne s u nd e rthe F e der alRule s o fCi vi lP ro cedure and the F edera lRule s o fN o. 11
- 1484 9 A pp el l ate Pro cedure i s a cl ose o ne: “Ap pel l ate Rule 4 i ntegr ate s the ti m e t o appeal with a ti m el y m oti on” und er R u les 50 an d 59 . F ED . R. C IV . P. 59, ad visory com m ittee’s note , 20 09 am endm ents. Tre ating unti m el y pos t- tr i al m o ti o ns a s Rul e 60 mot i o ns , t o geth er wi tho bs er ving Rule 4’ s r equi re m ent tha t R u l e 6 0 m oti ons be fi l ed wi thin 2 8 da y s to tol lthe n o t i c e o fa pp e a lfi l i ngp e r i o d, “e nfo r c e [ s ] the de a dl i ne s p r o v i de d in the F e de r a lR ule s o fC i v i lP r o c e d u r e ” a n d “ ‘ s e t [ s ] a d e fi ni t e po i n to ft i me w hen l i ti gat i on s hal lbe at an end. ’ ” Lizar do , 6 19 F. 3d at 279 ( quoti ng Browd er, 434 U
. S. at 264). H ere, I B E W ’s mo t i o n s w e r e u n t i me l y, a n d s o th e y d i d n o tt o l lth e t i me i t had to appealfro m the und erl yi ng j ud gm ent. I ts M ar ch 1, 20 11, N oti ce o fA pp ealwas, h ow ev er, fi l ed l ess than 30 days afterthe dist rict co urt’ s F ebr uary3, 20 11, ru lin g on tho se post- tr i alm oti ons. W e there f or e hav e j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew tho se or ders.
B T his resolves our fi rst j u r is d ictional problem , bu t the re i s a se cond one: wh etherthe dist ri ct c ourti tse l fhad the a uthor i ty to rul e o n I BE W ’ s p ost- tr i alm oti ons. B üc he l

- R u egsegger v . B üc hel , 576 F.3d 451 , 453 (7th C ir. 20 09 )
. S o f ar, we ha ve no t h ad o cc as i o n t o de te r m i ne w hethe rthe t i me l i mi t s c o nt a i ne d in Ru l e s 5 0 a nd 59 ar e j u ris dict i onal
. S ee Trepa nier, 36 4 F
. A pp ’ x at 262 ( “[ W ] e nee d not decid e w h etherRule 59 ( e) i s a j uri sdic

tionalr ul e o ra c l ai m s- pr o ce ss i ngr ul e be ca us e . . . de fen d an ts did not w ai ve the prot ecti on of the rul e. ”)
. I n th is case , howev er , B lue’ s f ai l ure to obj ect to the unti m el i ness10 N o. 11
- 1484 ofI BE W ’ s m oti ons re quir es us to dete rm i ne wh ether th o se t i m e l i m i ts i m po se j ur i sdi ct i o na ll i m i ts o n the au th ority ofthe d istr ic t c ou rt, or w he th er they are si m p lyc l ai m - pr o ce ss i ngr ul es . W e co nc l ude tha t th e 28- day l i m i t o n fi lin g m oti ons und erRule s 5 0 a nd 59 ar e n on -j u ris d i c tio n al p ro c ed u ra l ru les d es ign ed to aid i n the or derl y t ra nsacti on o fj ud i ci albusi ness. A s descr ibed abo ve, tim e lim i ts that have been passed by Congre ss and that c l ear l y e vi n c e an i ntent to be j uri sd ict ion al, su c h as 28 U .S.C . § 21 07 (a ) , are j u ris d ict ion al. He nde rs on v. Sh i ns e ki, 131 S. Ct
. 1197, 1202-03 (20 1 1). Because “ onlyCo ng r e s s ma y de t e r mi ne a l o we rfe der al c ou rt ’s s u bj ec t-m at te r j u ris d ict ion,” h ow ev e r , it is i m properf orco urts to r eferto thei r own r u les a s “j uri sdict i onal
. ” B o w les , 55 1 U.S
. at21 1 ( quoti ng Kontrickv. Rya n , 540 U
. S. 44 3, 45 2 ( 2004 ) ) ( em phasi s a dd ed). Fo r ex am p le, th e Su p re m e C ou rth as ru led th at F e d e ra l Ru le o fBa nk r upt cyPr o ce dur e 40 04, wh ich se ts a de adl i ne f ora partyto o bj ect to the di schar ge ofdebt, i s no t j uri sd ict ion al. Kontri ck, 54 0 U.S
. at45 6. Lik e Bankr u p tcy Rule 4004, the ti m e l i m i ts conta i ned in Fed eral Ru les ofCivil Proc ed ure 50(b) an d 59(b) are cl ai m - proce ssin g ru l es. These rul es w er e a l lpro m ulg ate d by the S up re m e Cour t under th e R ule s Enabl i ng Act, 28 U
. S. C . § § 2 071- 2077, and ther ef or e “ do not cre ate o r w i thdraw fe deralj uri sdic tio n .” Kontri ck, 54 0 U.S
. at45 3; see al so Lizardo , 61 9 F
. 3d at 277. To b e s ure, the d ist ri ct court in thi s ca se vi ol ate d Feder alRule o fCi vi lPro
cedure 6 b y ex tendi ng I BE W ’ s t i m e t o fi l e i ts post- tr i al m oti ons beyo nd 28 days. F ED . R. C IV . P. 6(b)( 2) ( “A cou rtN o. 11
- 1484 11

m us t no t ex te nd the t i m e t o actunde rRul es 5 0(b) a nd ( d)
. . . [ an d] 5 9(b) , ( d) , a nd ( e)
. ”)
. Bu t th i s er r o rha s no j uri sdic ti ona lco nsequences, and the dist ri ct c ourtwas w ith inits d isc re tio n to co n sid er t h e m ot ion . Th e o n ly c o ns e qu e nc e , whi c h a s we s ha l l s e e i s a n i mpo r t a nto ne, i s th atthe s co pe o fthe cou r t’ s au th o r i tyb ec ame c o nstr ai ned by Rul e 6 0. I n sum m ar y, the dist ri ct c ourthad j uri sdic ti on to hear IB E W ’s u n tim e l y m ot ion s. T h os e m ot ion s, h ow ev er , d id n otto ll th e t i m e I B E W h ad to file its N ot ice of A p p ea l. M oreover, the gr ounds f orr el i efwere narr owed to th os e s etfort h in R u le 6 0. D eutsc h , 9 8 1 F
. 2 d a t3 0 1
. We thus t u rn t o the r em ai ni ng i ssues o n appeal, as i t has no w b e e n l i mi t e d.
III A l though I BE W styl ed i ts m oti ons as re quests f or re l i efunder Rul e 5 0 o r 59, t h e w i nd ow had cl ose d on that possibi l i ty by the t i m e i t fi l ed th em and so i t was ne ce ss ar i l y pur suing re l i efunde rRul e 60
. Ofthe v ar i o us gr ounds spel l ed out i n the l att er rule , the onl y o ne that m igh t a p p ly to IB E W is R u l e 6 0(b )(6) , a ca tc h all p ro visio n th at p er m its a c ou rtt o re op en a j u d gm en t “ for an y . . . re aso n j ustifyi ng r el i effro m the oper ati on o fthe j ud gm ent. ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 )
. T h i s “ e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e me d y ” i s g e n e r a l l y g r a n t e d o n l y i n “ e x c e p t i o n a lc i r c um sta nces. ” Bakery M ac hi ne ry & Fab r i ca tio n Inc . v. Tr adi t i onal B a king, Inc. , 5 7 0 F
. 3 d 8 4 5 , 8 4 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )
. I BEW o ffe r s t wo a r g u me n t s f o rwh y i tme e t s th a td emandi ng st an d ar d: fi rs t, i t s ays thatthe dist ri ct c ourter re d w hen i t a l l owed Bl ue to pre sent w hat i t r ega rds a s cum ula ti ve12 N o. 11
- 1484 and prej ud i ci alev i denc e; and seco nd , i t insi sts that th ere w as insu ffici en t evid en ce to su p p ort th e ju r y’s ve r di c t . T he di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d r e l i e fo n b o th gr ounds, and w e r evi ew thi s deci sion fo r abuse ofdi sc re tio n . Id. at84 8.
A On the fi r stg r o und, I BEW c o m pl ains pa r ti cul ar l y abo ut th e d istri ct cou rt’s d ecision to ad m it parts of Ph il li p s’s M E O C fil e into evide nc e. E ven i n ord inary case s, w he re th e p arty ha s p rop erly p reserved th e p oin t, e vide nt iary er ro r w ar ra nts r el i efo nl y i fthe dist ri ct c ourtabuse d i ts d i s c r e t i o n . A p a r t y a t t e mpt i n gt o p r e s e n tth i s a r g um en t u n d er R u le 6 0 h as an ev en h igh er bu rd en ; i t m us t som eh o w demons tr at e th atthe r e i s a si g ni fi ca nt probabi l i ty ofa substan tiali nj usti ce. S ee Shick v. Ill
. D ep’t of H um a n S v cs. , 307 F.3d 605 , 611 (7th C ir. 2002); see al so F ED . R. C IV . P. 61
. I BE W has not hurdle d th is hi gh ba r, and w e add f orthe sak e o fco m ple tenes s th ate ve n un dera l es s defer en ti als ta nda r d we s ee no er ro r h er e. The dis tr i ct c ourtwas w ell w i thi n i ts disc re ti on t o al l o w B l u e t o p r e s e n tth i s e v i d e n c e t o th e j u r y . T he M E O C doc um en ts th a t IB E W w an ted to exclu d e are no t pr ej ud i c i a l l y c umul a t i v e s i mpl y b e c a us e I BEW w as wi l l i n gt o c o n c e d e th a tP h i l l i p s fi l e d an ME O C c o mp lai nt and t h at B lue’s resp ons es corroborat ed Ph il li p s’s al l ega ti ons. W i thi n the l i m i ts ofFe deralRule o f Evidence 403, Bl ue was ent itle d to m ake hercas e withN o. 11
- 1484 13 th e e vid en c e o f h er ow n ch o o s i n g . Cf. U ni t e d S t at e s v. O ld C hief

, 519 U
. S. 172, 186-89 (1997 ). The M EOC do cument at i o n h el ps to i l l us tr at e th e cau se-an d -effect relation betw een a ction on Ph il li p s’s com p lai nt at the M E O C and the h arshretali atory t r e a t men te nd ur e d b y Blue . F o re xa mpl e , the MEOC mad e an i nitial p robab le cause de term ination on Ph il li p s’s com pla i nt o n A ugust 3 , 20 06. Fo ur days l ate r, Bl ue r ece i ve d a l et te r deny i nghe ro ve r ti m e o ppo r tu ni ti es . S he w as enti tl ed to present the pr obab l e ca use dete rm i nati on t o show, as she a rgued at t ri al, th at t he deni alo f ove rt i m e was “ a re acti on t o her parti ci pati on in that ca se . ” Sim il ar l y, a few da y s afte rI BEW l ea r ne d o fthe M EO C’s schedule d pu bl ic h ear i ng i n Phil l i ps’s cas e, Bl ue w a s f o r ma l l y d i s c i p l i n e d i n s e v e r a lwa y s . In a l l, the docum ents fro m Phi l l i ps’s M EO C fi l e w er e r el evantto Blue’ s a l l ega ti on tha t IB E W ’ s unf ai r tr eat m ent o fher wa s a r e s p o n s e t o h e rp a r t i c i p a t i o n i n P h i l l i p s ’ s c o mpla i nt, and the dist rict c ou rtdi d not abuse i ts disc re ti on by fi nd i ng tha t thi s e vi dence w as m or e pr obat i ve of th i s c a u s a lr e l a t i o n s h i p th a n p r ej u d i c i a lt o I B E W.
B N ex t, I BEW a r g ue s th atthe r e was i ns uffi ci en t ev i den ce t o s us ta i n the v er di ct . W e d o nota g r ee , a nd eve n i fwe had som e qual m s, I BE W ’ s a rg u m en t i s pre c l ud e d b y the s cop e o fr e v i e w u nd e rR ul e 6 0
. I BEW c om p lain s t h at B lu e’s on ly p ro of w as h er o w n te st im on y, bu t t h at is bo th u n t ru e a n d irre lev an t. E ve n if B lu e’s ow n te st im on y w er e he r on ly ev id en c e, i t w o u ld14 N o. 11
- 1484 be e nough to sust ai n the ver dict
. S ee D ar ch ak v
. Chi
. Bd. of E duc. , 58 0 F
. 3d 622, 63 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. Our ac count o f the f acts ea rl i er suffi ces to dem onst ra te the c ase that th e j ury h eard
. Blu e herse lfprov id e d s o m e of th at inform ati on, and ot h erwitnes ses co rr obo ra ted heracc ount. The j ury also hear d about the s uspici ous t i m i ng be

twe enB lue ’ s par ti ci pat i o n in P hi l l i ps’ s ca se a nd the var i ous a dv er se acti ons that H ar re l son too k. That ti m i ng support s a n i nfe re nce o fr eta l i ati on. S ee Si l ve r m an v. B d. of Ed uc. of Chi. , 637 F.3d 729 , 734 (7th C ir. 2 0 11). A l to g e the r, the e v i de nc e i s mor e tha n s uffi c i e ntto s u p p o r tth e j u r y ’ s v i e w tha t Blu e ’ s s e v e r a la d v e r s e e mplo ym ent a cti ons w er e the r esul t o fherpa rti ci pati on i n an M EO C in ve stig ati on. By no str etch ofthe i m aginati on w as i t s o w eakthatther e was a si gni fi cant pr obabi l i ty ofa m i scar ri age o fj usti ce he re . I BEW ha s m ade oth er a r g um en ts a s wel l, b utno ne has any m er i t. The dist ri ct cour t w as w el l w i thin i ts au th ority to d en y I B E W ’s m otions, and w e the refore A FFIRM i ts post-j ud gm ent rulings.

4- 2- 12