FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAR 23, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ P U B L I S H ] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 06- 1141 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D.C. Dock etNos . 00 -0 36 10 -CV-R RA-NE

02-031 46-CV- RRA BE VE RL Y C HA MBL ES S, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us LOUISIANA-PACIF IC COR PORATION, De fendant-Appellee,

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f o r th e N o rth e rnD i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 23, 200 7) Be fo re CA RN E S, P RY O R and F A RR IS , * C ir cu it Judg es . FA RRIS , C ircuit Judg e:

_____________________________ *Honora ble J erome Fa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by desig nation.2

Bever ly Cham bless, a 48-y ear- old Caucasian fem ale, alleged that her form er em ploy er L ouisi ana-Pa cific denied her prom otion s due to her age and gender, subj ec te d he r to a

se xua lly hos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t, and r et al iate d a ga ins t he r fo r br ing ing dis cr im inatio n c om pla int s, in vio latio n of

T itl e V II of

the Ci vil Ri ght s Ac t of 1964, 42 U.S .C. § 2000 e et se q. , and the A ge D isc ri m inatio n in E m plo ym en t A ct , 29 U . S. C. § 62 1 et se q. Cham

bless also asserted state law cl ai m s fo r ne gl ig en t t rai ni ng , supe rv is io n, an d re te nt io n. Tw o y ears late r, Cham

bless filed an additio nal lawsuit alleging that L oui siana -P ac if

ic te rm inate d he r in r et al iatio n f or he r E qua l O ppor

tun ity Em ploym ent Com

m issio n charge and prior law suit. T he two ca ses wer e co nsol idate d by

am ag istrate j udge , w ho d ism iss ed Ch am ble ss’ s se xua l hara ssm en t an ds t at e l aw cl ai m s an dd en i edh erv ar i o u s m o t i o n s o nth e r emai n i n g cl ai m s . We a f f i rm. Ch am ble ss arg ue d th at

a lth oughshe w as tol d th at she w as dis qua lif

ie d f ro m co nsi de ratio n f

or apr om oti on d

ue to he r fa ilure to pr ope rl y c om ple te F am ily Me dic al L eave A ct

pa pe rw ork duri ng s ic k le av e, L oui siana -P ac if ic c re at ed the re qui re m en t f

or the pur pose of de ny ing he r the pr om oti on b as ed on h er ge nde r an d age. She further alleged that num erous instances of sexual harassm ent occurred during h er e m

ploym ent with L ouisi ana-Pa cific, cre ating a hosti le w ork3

e n v i r o n me n t . A mo n g o th e r th i n g s , C h a mb l e s s a l l e g e dth a ts h e s u f f e r e df r o m: sexual touch ing, j okes, and proposi tions by m ale em ploy ees; a m ale cow orker raising her dress and placing his head betwe en her legs; ridicule because of her pr eg nanc y ; so ci al iso latio n; and d isp ar at e j ob c ondi tio ns s uc h a s r equir ing he r to ar ri ve f if te enm inu te s e ar lie r than he r m al e co w orke rs and n ot a llo w ing he r to t ak e breaks during her shift as a crane operator. Cham bless also alleged th at L oui siana -P ac if

ic r et al iate d a ga ins t he r fo r fi lin g th e co m pla int s by f ai lin g to pr om ote he r, e ve ntu al ly

f ir ing he r usi ng h er

vio latio n of

the c om pany ’ s sm oki ng po li cy as apre te xt . Ch am bl es s’s h os ti le worken vi ro nm en t cl ai m was d is m is se d a s u nt im el y . T he state lawc la im s pr ed ic at ed on the hos til e w or

k e nvi ro nm en t c la im

w er e al so dis m iss ed . T he m ag istrate j udge bif ur cate d tr ia l of

the r em ai nin g c la im s ( fa ilure to prom ote and retaliatory

discharge) into liabilityand dam ages phases. T he j ury re tur ne d ave rd ic t f

or L oui siana -P ac if

ic , f ind ing that a lth oughr et al iatio n w as a m oti va tin g f

ac tor in Ch am ble ss’ s te rm inatio n, “ the de fe ndant w oul d have f ir ed the pla int if f fo r a nond isc ri m inator

y m oti ve any

w ay . ” T he j ur

y a lso f ound f or Lou is ia na -Pac ifi c o n t he fai lu re t o p ro m ot e cl ai m . On appeal C ham

bless m akes num erous argum ents. W e discuss three, adoptin g the m agistrate j udge’s c onclusi ons for the rem ainder. Cham bless argues4

that L oui siana -P ac if

ic f ai le d to art ic ulate a“ le git im at e” r ea son fo r not pr om oti ng her, entitling her to j udgm ent as a m atter of law. She argues for a newtrial or an am en de d j udgm en t ba se d onc ha lle nge s to the m ixe d- m oti ve j ur y ins tr uc tio n, dis m iss al of

he r fe de ra l and s tate c la im s, and b if ur catio n of

the tr ia l. F ina lly , she ar gue s th at

she c onse nte d to the m ag istrate j udge ’ s j ur isd ic tio n ov er he r fi rs t, but no t h er s eco nd , laws ui t.

I. Motion for Judg m ent as a Matter of L aw Ch am ble ss c ha lle nge s th e m ag istrate j udge ’ s de nia l of he r Fe de ra l R

ule of Ci vi l Pr oc edur e 5 0 m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Un de r Ru le 50 , a co urt m ay r en de r j udgm en t a s am atte r of laww he n th er e is n o le ga lly suf fi ci en t ev id en ti ary ba si s t o fi ndfora pa rty who h as be en ful ly heardon an is su e. F ED . R. C IV . P . 50. W e re vie wRu le 50 m oti ons de nov o, vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p art y . Ca m pbe ll v. R ain bowCi ty

, A la. , 434 F . 3d 13 06 , 13 12 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Cham bless argues that she plead a pri m a fa ci e case of sex- and age-based dis cr im inator

y f ai lur e to p ro m ote and tha t i n r es pons e L oui siana -P ac if ic f ai le d to m ee t i ts b ur de n of

art ic ulatin g “ som e le git im at e, non dis cr im inator y r ea son fo r [her] rej ection.” See M

cD onnell Dougl as Corp. v. Gree n , 411 U . S. 792 , 802 (1 973) . S he a sse rt s th at

L oui siana -P ac if

ic ' s pr of fe re d r ea son – th at

she im pr ope rl y5

fi lle d ou t si ck

le av e pa pe rw ork – w as avio latio n of the F ML Aand c annot

be

“ legitim ate. ” She contends that the presum ption of discrim ination raised by her prima facie case there fore stands unrebutted, entitling her to j udgm ent as a m atter of law. Se e Tu rnes v . A m Sout h B ank, 36 F.3d10 57 , 10 61 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). Cham bless's argum ent was a ddressed and dis m issed bythe Suprem e Court in H aze n Pape r C

o. v . B igg ins , 507 U . S. 604 ( 1993 ). I n Hazen Paper , the C ourt held that “ a disparate tre atm ent claim cannot succeed unless the em ploy ee' s pr ote ct ed tr ai t a ct ua lly play ed ar ole in that pr oc es s and h ad ade te rm inativ e influence on the out com e. ” I d. at 610. T hus, proof that Louisiana-Pac ific violated the FML A is irr elevant to the inqu iry into whether L ouisi ana-Pa cific discrim inated ag ai ns t h er b as edon he r pr ot ect edtra it s. Ch am ble ss f ai le d to de m onstrate that ge nde r an d a ge , he r pr ote ct ed tr ai ts, de te rm inativ el y

inf lue nc ed L oui siana -P ac if

ic ’ s f ai lur e to p ro m ote he r. T he m ag istrate j udge c or

re ct ly de nie d C ham

ble ss’ s c ont en tio n th at

the re w as no l eg al ly su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary ba si s t o fi ndforLou is ia na -Pac ifi c.

II . Mo tio n f

or aN ewT ri al or

A m en de d Ju dgm en t A . W ai ve r of

“ Mi xe d- Mot ive ” D ef

en se Ch am ble ss arg ue s th at

L oui siana -P ac if

ic w ai ve d th e af

fi rm at ive “ m ixe dm oti ve ” de fe nse – whic h c onc ed es that an im pr ope r m oti ve play ed

ar ole in the6

em plo y er ’ s a ct ionw hil e as se rt ing that anothe r, va lid r ea son w oul d have r es ult ed in the sam e de ci sio n – b y

not pr ope rl y ple ad ing it . T he re fo re , she c ont en ds, the m ag is tra te jud ge erre d i n i ns tru ct in g t he jury on th e d efen se . See F ED . R. C IV . P . 8(c) ( listin g affir

m ative defenses parties m ust plead). “ W e apply

‘ a defe rential standard of r ev ie w ’ ” to a

m ag istrate j udge ’ s j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns i f the y

a cc ur at el y refl ectth e la w. See W

right v. CSX Transp ., Inc. , 375 F. 3d 12 52, 1256 (11t h Cir. 20 04 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . W e ne ed not de ci de the e xte nt t o whic h th e m ixe d- m oti ve de fe nse is gove rn ed by Ru le 8( c) ' s pl ea din g r equir em en ts whe re the de fe nse is inc lud ed in th e p ret ria l o rd er an d t hu s g iv es th e p la in ti ffs an d t he co ur t s uf fic ie ntno ti ce. See P ull iam v . T

allapoo sa C

ount y Ja il , 185 F. 3d 11 82, 1185 (11t h Cir. 1999 ). In P ull iam the m ixe d- m oti ve de fe nse w as inc lud ed in the pr etri al or de r, tho ugh the de fe ndant d id n ot m en tio n th e de fe nse by nam e, sim

ply a lle gin g th at

any a dve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on s s uf

fere d b y th e p la in ti ff “ were ei th er a re su ltof h is own request or of his unsatis factory perform ance in his posi tion.” Id . H ere, LouisianaPa ci fi c as se rt ed

in its answ er

that i ts a ct ion s a ga ins t C ham ble ss “ w er e take n, m ade, and don e in goodfaith for le gitim ate non-discrim inatory , j ob-related busi ne ss r ea sons and/ or were based on fa ctors oth er than her rep ortin g alleged se xu al disc rim ina tio n .” (em phasis add ed).7

Louisiana-Pac ific’ s language was less specific than the P ull iam pl ai nt iff s’, but it put Ch am ble ss o n no tic e that on e or m or e re as ons oth er

than r et al iatio n w oul d be a t i ssu e. G ive n he r know le dge that L oui siana -P ac if ic ha d purp orte dly fi re d he r fo r sm oki ng i n he r cr an e ca b, Ch am ble ss h ad w ar nin g of w ha t w oul d be lit igate d a t tri al . T he m ag istrate j udge did not e rr in al low ing L oui siana -P ac if ic to pr oc eedwit h t he m ix ed -m ot iv e d efen se .

B . T i me l i n e s s o f

S e x u a l H ar a s s me n tC l a i m T he m ag istrate j udge gr an te d L oui siana -P ac if ic sum m ar y j udgm en t on Ch am bl es s’s s ex ua l h aras sm en t cl ai m , di sm is si ng th em as u nt im el y . W e rev ie w a gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o, vie w ing e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to th e n on m ov in g p art y . Se e W ee ks v . H arde n M fg. Co rp. , 291 F . 3d 1 307, 131 1 (1 1thCi r. 200 2) . S um

m ar y j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr iate onl y

if the re is no g enuin e iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t and the m ovi ng p ar

ty is en tit le d to j udgm en t a s am atte r of la w. F ED . R. C IV . P. 56 (c). D isc re te a ct s of

hara ssm en t a ct ion ab le a s un law fu l e m plo ym en t pr ac tic es , suc h a s L oui siana -P ac if

ic ’ s f ai lur e to p ro m ote and r et al iatio n, f el l w ith in the lim itations period. H owever , the non-discrete a cts m aking up her hostile work en vir onm en t c la im

– whic h are not

ind ivi dua lly

a ct ion ab le – f

el l outsi de theA h os til e wo rk e nv ir onme nt c la im d e pe nd s o n “ a se ri e s o f s e pa

ra te a c ts t hat c oll e c tiv e ly 1 constitute one ‘unlaw ful employ ment prac tice.’” Morgan , 536 U.S. at 117 (citation omitted).

8 lim itatio ns p er iod . T he m ag istrate j udge de te rm ine d th at ti m el y dis cr et e ac ts o f 1 dis cr im inatio n c oul d no t save unt im el y non -d isc re te a ct s, r el y ing on Porter v. Ca lif orni a D ep art

m en t of Co rre ct ion s , 41 9 F .3d88 5, 8 92 -9 3 (9 th Cir . 20 05 ). In Na tio nal

R ail road P ass en ge r C

orp. v . M orga n , 536 U . S. 101 ( 2002 ), the Suprem e Court set forth genera l principles to d eterm ine whether tim ely acts can save non -t im el y

a ct s. I t he ld tha t “ dis cr et e dis cr im inator y a ct s are not

a ct ion ab le if tim e barr ed, e ven when they are relate d to acts alleged in tim ely filed charges. ” M orga n , 536 U . S. a t 11 3. T he li m itatio ns p er iod be gin s r unni ng the day

the di sc ret e actoc cu rs . Id . I n c ontra st, hos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t c la im s c ont inu e to oc cu r ov er t im e. Id . a t 11 7. T hus, the e nti re ti m e pe ri od o f the hos til e en vir onm en t m ay

be c onsi de re d by

ac ourt f or the pur pose s of de te rm ini ng li ab il it y if a n a ctrel at in g t o t he cla im oc cu rredwit hi n t he fil in g p eri od . Id . at 1 20 . Whe re the dis cr et e ac t i s su ff ic ie ntl y r el at ed to a host ile w ork e nvi ro nm en t cl ai m so tha t i t m ay

be f ai rl y c onsi de re d part

of the sam e cl ai m , it

c anf orm the b a s i s f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o no f

u n t i me l y, n o n - d i s c r e t e a c t s th a tar e p arto f th e s a me cl ai m . T he piv ota l qu es tio n is w he the r the ti m el y dis cr et e ac ts are suf

fi ci en tly related to the hostile work environm ent claim . He re, the discrete ac ts do no t m eet9

that t es t. T he c ir cum stanc es sur ro undi ng L oui siana -P ac if ic ’ s f ai lur e to p ro m ote an d r et al iatio n a ga ins t C ham ble ss d o no t su gge st tha t those dis cr et e ac ts w er e the sam e ty pe of “ discrim inatory

intim idation , r idicule, and insult” that characteriz ed th e u nt im el y

all eg at io ns . Harris v. F

orklift Sys., I

nc. , 510 U . S. 17, 21 ( 1993 ). T he tim el y dis cr et e ac ts are thu s not part of the sexual harassm ent hosti le w ork environm ent claim

and therefore cannot save the earlier , untim ely acts that co m pr is e th atcla im . Once the m agistrate j udge dis m issed the federal sexual hara ssm ent charge, Ch am ble ss w as r equir ed

to es ta bli sh s om e oth er

und er ly ing tor

t i n or de r to p re va il in he r st at e la w cla im s fo r ne gl ig en t t rai ni ng , supe rv is io n, an d re te nt io n. See U niv. F ed . Cr edit U

nio n v . G ray

son , 878 S o. 2d 2 80, 291 ( A la . 200 3) ( not ing “ that a party a lle gin g ne gli ge nt s upe rv isi on and h ir ing m ust pr ove the und er ly ing w ro ngf ul c ondu ct ”) . C ham

ble ss arg ue s th at

c er ta in d isc ri m inator

y a ct s th at she al le ge d c onst itute d a ssa

ult and b atte ry

and i nva sio n of

pr iva cy . T he statut e of li m it at io ns forth os e to rts is two y ears . A LA . C ODE § 6- 2- 38( l) , ( n) ( 1975 ). T he al le ge d a ct s th at

Ch am ble ss arg ue s c onst itute d a ssa ult and b atte ry

and i nva sio n of pr iva cy oc curr ed m or e than tw o y ears pr ior to the da te she f

ile d he r co m

pla int , rendering them

untim ely . Cham

bless thu s failed to prove an unde rl y ing state or fe de ra l t ort. T he m ag istrate j udge pr ope rl y dis m iss ed

the state lawc la im s.10 I I I . M a g i s tr a t e J u d g e ’s J u r i s d i c t i o no v e r R e t a l i a t i o nC l a i m Ch am ble ss arg ue s th at

she did not e xpr es sly

c onse nt t o th e m ag istrate j udge ’ s j ur isd ic tio n ov er

he r re ta liatio n c la im , a s sh e did f or he r earl ie r ac tio n, and that consol idation of her c om plaints d id notcure that def ect. She c onclud es that the m ag istrate j udge la ck ed j ur isd ic tio n to a dj udi cate the se co nd c om pla int and i t sh ou ldbe rem an de d fo r tr ia l b efo re an Arti cl e III ju dg e. A lth oughw e have r equir ed that c onse nt t o am ag istrate j udge ’ s j ur isd ic tio n be “ express and on th e re cord,” Re mbert v. Apfel , 213 F. 3d 13 31, 1334 (11t h Cir. 2000 ), the S upr em e Co urt he ld i n R oe ll v. W ith row , 538 U. S. 580 (200 3), that consent to a m agistrate j udge’s j urisdictio n can be inferr ed from a party ’ s conduct du rin g l it ig at io n. I

d. a t 58 2. T he Co urt r ef

use d to a dopt

abr igh t- lin e ru le re qui ri ng e xpr es s c onse nt, ins te ad a cc ep tin g im

pli ed c onse nt “ whe re . . . the lit igant o r co unse l w as m ad e aw ar e of the ne ed f or c onse nt and the r igh t t o r ef use it, and still volu ntarily

appeared to try

the case bef

ore the Magistrate Judge.” Id . at 58 9- 90 . Cham bless consen ted to the m agistrate j udge’s j urisdictio n over her original ca se and thus kne wof

the ne ed f or c onse nt and the r igh t t o r ef use it . S he m ad e no obj ec tio n to the m ag istrate j udge ’ s j ur isd ic tio n ov er he r re ta liatio n c la im

f or e igh t m onth s, w aiting in stead until s ix day s prior to trial. Eight m onth s of continu al11

p art i c i p a t i o ni np r e tr i a l p r o c e e d i n g s j u s t i f i e s th e i n f e r e n c e o f c o n s e n tf r o m a lit igant aw ar e of

the ne ed to co nse nt. AFFIR MED.