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

### A u gu s t7,2007 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 RO S ANN WI L L I AM S , KAT HR YN H U N T E R , M O I R A D A L Y and M AR I A M AR QU AR T, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , RO BE RT HADDO CK , Pl ai nt i ff, v. W .D . S P O R T S , N .M ., IN C ., d /b /a N EW M EX I CO SCO RPI O N S, WI L L I AM DOUGL AS F RA NK, PATRI CK J . DU NN , a n d TYLER BOUCHER, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 2127

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 ri ct of

N ew M exi co ( D . C . N o. 03- cv- 1195) M aur een A . Sander s , of Sander s & W es tbr ook, P. C . ( K athr yn H amm el , of The H amm el L aw Fi r m , P. C . , w i t h heron the br i efs ) , A l buquer que, N ew M exi co, for P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants . A l ex C . W al ker( L i s a M ann and Em i l J . K i ehne w i th hi m on the br i efs ) , of M odr al l , Sper l i ng, R oehl , H arr i s & Si s k, P. A . , A l buquer que, N ew M exi co, for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees.-2-

B efor e KELLY, EBEL, and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. GORS UCH , C i r cui tJ udge. Sever al femal e form erempl oy ees of the N ew M exi co Scorpi ons , a mi nor l eagu e ho ckeyt eam , fi l ed suitagainstt he team and vari ou s of i t s m anag ers , al l egi ng t hatt heyengage d i n s exual har as s m entand otherconductpr os cr i bed by T itl e V II a n d sta te la w . A f ter a 1 0 -d a ytrial, a ju ryfo u n d fo r d e fe n d a n ts o n a ll count s . I n t hi s appea l , pl ai nt i ffs di r ectus t o no few ert han thi r tyrul i ngs t hey ar gue w er e mi s t aken a nd r equi r e r ever s al . W e fi nd one s uch ar gum ent m e rito rio u s. A f

ter th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n , an d d u rin g th e p e n d e n c yo f th is appea l , t he Supr eme C our ti s s ued B ur l i ngt on Nor ther n & Santa Fe Rai lw ay C o mp a ny v . Wh ite , __ U .S . __ , 1 2 6 S . C t. 24 0 5 (2 0 0 6 ), se tti n g fo rth a n e w ru b ric foranal y zi ng T i t l e V I I r et al i at i on cas es . I n Wh ite , t he C our thel d thatan empl oy ee s ubj ect ed t o empl oy erconduct , w hetheri ns i de orout s i de the w or kpl ace , t hatw el l m i ghtdi s s uade a n obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e w or kerfr om m aking or supp ort i ng a charge o f dis cri m i nati on suffers a s uffi ci entl yadv ers e act i on t o s t at e a c l ai m underT i t l e V I I . B eca us e a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd t hat the e m p loy er in this ca se to o k su ch an ac ti o n ag ains t on e o f th e p lai n ti ffs b efo re u s, R o sa n n W ill iam s, w e re v e rse a n d re m a n d h e r re talia tio n c laim fo r tria l. O n a ll re m a in in g sc o re s, w e a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt.U nderl ong- s t andi ng ci r cui tpr ece dent , s upervi s or s and otherempl oy ees 1 m a yn o t b e h e ld p e rs o n a lly lia b le u n d e r T itle V II . See Hay n e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 88 F. 3d 898, 899 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ( “The r el i ef gr ant ed underT i t l e V I I i s agai ns tt he empl oyer , noti ndi vi dual empl oy ees w hos e ac t i ons w oul d cons t i tut e a vi ol at i on of t he A ct . ” ( quot i ng Sa u e rs v . Sa lt L a ke C ity , 1 F .3 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 2 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 )) ). Super vi s or yempl oy ees act i ng i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es , how ever , m aybe named as defe ndant s i n a Ti t l e V I I act i on as a means t o s ue the empl oy erunderan a g e n c yth e o ry. S e e id . F o rt h e s e r e a s o n s , i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n t h a tfo l l o ws we re g a rd W .D . S p o rt s a s th e s o le d e fe n d a n t to th e p la in tiffs ’ T itle V II c la im s . A l l c l a i m s a g a i n s tB ru c e L e v i n e w e r e d i s m i s s e d p r i o rt o t r i a l . S i m i l a r l y, 2 al l cl ai m s agai ns tD an B ur ger s w er e di s m i s s ed as a r es ul tof a di r ect ed ver di ct m oti on att he close of plai nti ffs’ evi den ce. P l ai nti ffs do no tapp eal t hese d is m is s a ls . -3- I I n a 26- countcompl ai nt , pl ai nt i ffs – femal e empl oy ees w ho handl ed t i cket i ng, box offi ce, and off i ce managerdut i es , among ot her s , forthe Scorpi ons – al l eged a patt ern of hos t i l e, gender - bas ed ac t i vi tyi m pl i cat i ng thei rr i ght s under T i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, as amended, 42 U . S. C . § 2000e ets eq. , and st at e l aw . T heydir ect ed thei r s uitagainstthe team ’s ow ner, W . D . S po rt s, N .M ., In c . (“ W .D . S p o rt s ” ); its p re s id e n t W illia m D o u g la s F ra n k ; P a tr ic k D u n n , a reti red p lay er w h o serv ed as th e tea m ’s ge n era l m an ag er; an d T y ler B o u ch er, another r et i r ed pl ay er w ho s erved as as s i s t ant t o the pr es i dent . A ft ers i x m ont hs 1 o f d isco v ery , d efen d an ts m o v ed fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, w h ich th e d istri ct co u rt gr ant ed i n par tand deni ed i n part . R . 911- 13, 954- 55, 995- 97, 1021- 04. 2 M os tpert i nentamong t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ngs forourpurpos es i s t he dis po si t i on of M s. W i l l i am s’ s cl ai m for un l aw ful r et al i at i on un der T i t l e V II . M s.-4-

W ill iam s b e g a n th is s u it alle g in g v a rio u s re talia to rya c ts. U n d e rly in g th e m a ll i s t he fa ctt hat , s om et i m e i n ear l y2002, M s . W i l l i ams compl ai ned t o her s upervi s or s , and l at ert o governm entoffi ci al s , aboutgender - r el at ed di s cr i m i nat i on a th e rwo r k p l a c e . S p e c i fi c a l l y , mo n th s p r i o rt o h e rt e r mi n a t i o n , M s . W i l l i a ms v o iced d isco m fo rto v er M r. B o u ch er’s an d the p lay ers’ rep ea ted u se o f g en d ers peci fi c pr ofani t yw hen addr es s i ng hert o M r . D unn and M r . Fr ank. R . 2543- 44, 2 5 5 5 . Up o n h e rs u p e r v i s o r s ’ a l l e g e d fa i l u r e t o r e me d yth e p r o b l e m, M s . W i l l i a ms t ook hergr i evanc e t o t he H um an R i ght s D i vi s i on of the N ew M exi co D epart m ent o f La b o r( “ NM DOL” ) i n J a n u a r y2 0 0 2 . R. 2 6 2 3 - 2 4 , 2 7 4 7 . I n M a r c h o f th e s a me y ear , M s . W i l l i ams fi l ed an offi ci al compl ai ntw i th the H um an R i ght s D i vi s i on c h a r g i n g W . D. S p o r t s wi t h g e n d e rd i s c r i mi n a t i o n a n d s e x u a l h a r a s s me n t . R. 2 5 9 6 -9 7 , 2 6 2 4 -2 6 , 2 7 4 7 -4 8 . Shor t l yaft erherfi l i ng, M s . W i l l i ams t es t i fi ed thats he and M r . Fr ank had t w o di s cus s i ons ; t hatM r . Fr ank expl ai ned thatther e w er e rum or s ci r cul at i ng a b o u tM s . W i l l i a ms b e i n g i n t i ma t e l yi n v o l v e d wi th th e t e a m c o a c h a n d s o me play ers , as w el l as cer t ai n season t i cket hol ders; and that he sugg est ed thatM s. W i l l i am s r esi gn , offeri ng her a severance pac kag e i f she d i d so. R . 25 91 -93. M s. W i l l i ams r efus ed t o r es i gn and as ked fora w r i t t en expl anat i on w hys he w as bei ng fire d . M r. F ra n k a lleg e d lyre sp o n d e d th a t sh e d id n o t “n e e d ” a p iec e o f p a p e r to k n o w t h a ts h e wa s fi r e d a n d t o “ [ g ] e tth e [ e x p l e t i v e ] o u to f [ h i s ] o ffi c e . ” R. 2593- 94. M s . W i l l i ams’ s l as tdayof w or k w as M ar ch 29, 2002. R . 1734.-5-

M s. W ill iam s c o n ten d s th a t, af ter firin g h e r, M r. F ra n k th e n to ld h e r n o t to “fi ght ” hi m on “thi s , ” and thati f s he di d fi ghthi m , al l the rum or s abouther s e x u a l a c tiv itie s w o u ld b e m a d e p u b lic , w h e th e r o r n o t th e yw e re tru e . R . 2 5 9 4 . H e al s o t hr eat ened, “I w i l l rui n y ourm arr i age. . . . Y ou have ki ds and y ou have a hus band t o w or r yabout . ” Id . M s . W i l l i ams al l eges thatW . D . Spor t s pr ocee ded t o carr youtM r . Fr ank’ s t hr eat s byoppos i ng herappl i cat i on forunempl oym ent benef i t s w i t h t he N M D O L . Speci fi cal l y , W . D . Spor t s s ubm i t t ed a w r i t t en st at em ent as ser t i ng i thad fi red M s. W i l l i am s “for cause” beca use of M s. W i l l i ams’ s s uppos ed “fai l ur e t o heed w arni ngs orcorr ectbehavi orr egar di ng, among ot heri nci dent s , r epea t ed i ns t ance s of s exual m i s conductw [i th] peer s and s ubor di nat es amount i ng t o s exual har as s m ent ; dr i nki ng [and] al cohol [; and] theft of companypr oper t y , pr opr i et aryi nform at i on. ” R . 1734. T he company ’ s fi l i ng r epr es ent ed thatW . D . Spor t s coul d s uppor tthes e al l egat i ons thr ough the te s tim o n yo f

ju n io r e m p lo y e e s , p e e rs , a n d s u p e ri o rs . A s i thappens , how ever , t he c o mp a n yn e v e rp r o v i d e d a n ys u c h e v i d e n c e t o th e NM DOL, a n d M s . W i l l i a ms a lle g e s th a t th e s e a lle g a tio n s w e re fa ls e a n d re ta lia to ry in d e s ig n . Be c a u s e o f

W. D. S p o r t s ’ s o p p o s i t i o n t o h e ra p p l i c a t i o n , th e NM DOL sc h e d u led a n d h e ld a h e a rin g o n M s. W ill iam s’s u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e fits ap p li ca ti o n . A t that h ea ri n g , tho u g h ap p are n tl y n o t o n the rec o rd, W . D . S p o rt s’s cou nsel , John P hil l i ps, al l eged l yasked M s. W i l l i am s, “W hat do y ou w ant t o just s hutup and go aw ay ?” R . 2600. A ft erM s . W i l l i ams expr es s ed herbel i ef that-6-

W . D . Spor t s coul d not“gi ve [he r ] back w hat[i thas ] t aken a w ay , ” M r . Phi l l i ps purpor t edl ypr opos ed a qui d pr o quo : “I f y o u w ill d ro p y o u r H u m a n R ig h ts [di s cr i m i nat i on] cl ai m , I w on’ tfi ghty ou on y ourunempl oym ent . ” Id. M s. W il li am s d ec li n ed the o ffer, an d in sp it e o f th e h ea ri n g an d W . D . S p o rt s’s o p p o sitio n , the N M D O L u lti m a telyd e ter m in e d M s. W ill iam s w a s e n tit led to u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e fits . R . 2 6 0 1 . T h rou g h o u t i ts pro ce ed ing s, the d istri ct co u rttr ea ted W . D . S p o rt s’s t erm i nat i on of M s . W i l l i ams as a func t i onal l ys epar at e cl ai m of r et al i at i on fr om M r. F ra n k ’s th re a ts a n d W .D . S p o rts’s o p p o sitio n to h e r u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e fits ap p li ca ti o n ; M s. W il li am s d id n o t con testthis pro ce d u re b efo re the d istri ct co u rt and does notdo s o befor e us . W i th r es pectt o the fi r s tal l eged a ctof r et al i at i on – M s. W il li am s’s t erm ination – the d istri ct co u rtp roc ee d ed to g ran t sum m ary j udgm entt o W . D . Spor t s on t he gr ound that , i n i t s vi ew , M s . W i l l i ams had fa i l ed to ad d u ce ev iden ce o f a ca u sal l ink b etw ee n h er fir ing an d h er p rotec ted T it le V II r i ghtt o pur s ue cl ai m s of gende rdi s cr i m i nat i on. W hi l e r ai s i ng m anyother ar gum ent s forr ever s al , M s . W i l l i ams chos e nott o appea l thi s deci s i on. T he r e ma i n i n g a c t s o f

a l l e g e d r e t a l i a t i o n – c o n c e rn i n g M r . F r a n k ’ s th r e a t s a n d W. D. Spor t s ’ s oppos i t i on t o herunempl oym entbenef i t s appl i cat i on – pr ocee ded t o tr i al a lo n g w ith a v a ri e ty o f o th e r c a u s e s o f

a c tio n a n d fo rm s th e c ru x o f th is a p p e a l. A tt r i a l , p l a i n t i ffs t e s t i fi e d t o s e x u a l l y c h a r g e d c o m m e n t s a n d b e h a v i o rb y a nu m ber of the defen dan t s and o t her Sco rpi on s t eam m em bers and em ploy ees.-7-

T heyal s o pr es ent ed evi dence s eeki ng t o es t abl i s h thatthei rw or k envi r onm ent c a u se d th e m to su ffe r f ro m p o st tra u m a tic s tre ss d iso rd e r. In c o n tra st, d e fe n d a n ts o ffe re d e v id e n c e se e k in g to p o rtra yth e o ffice a s ro w d ya n d in fo rm a l, emphasi zi ng t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ ow n us e of foul l anguage . D efe ndant s al s o el i ci t ed test im o n yfro m the p lai n ti ffs reg ard ing o ther p o tential ca u ses, be side s the irw o rk env i ronm ent, t hat m i gh thav e i nd uced plai nti ffs’ cl ai m ed em oti on al dis tres s. A tt he close of plai nti ffs’ cas e i n ch i ef, defe nd ants m ov ed fo r j ud gm ent as a m at t erof l aw on M s . W i l l i ams’ s r emai ni ng r et al i at i on cl ai m and var i ous other co u n ts. T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted th e m o ti o n w ith resp ec t t o M s. W il li am s’s r et al i at i on cl ai m , and i n doi ng s o r eas oned that m yr evi ew of the ca s e l aw l eads m e t o concl ude thatone of the re q u ire m e n ts [ o f

a re talia tio n c laim b a se d o n th e o p p o sitio n to u n em p loym en t ben efit s] i s tha t th e p lai n ti ff ’s be n efit s, at th e v ery lea st, h a v e to h a v e b e e n d e layed , su sp e n d e d , o r n o t p a id ; an d in th is cas e, t hatdi dn’ thappen. T her efor e, w i th r es pectt o the u n e mp l o yme n tb e n e fi t s , I fi n d a n d c o n c l u d e th a tP l a i n t i ff W i l l i a ms s uffe r ed no del ayorces s at i on i n the bene fi t s and, ther efor e, di d not s uffe ran adve r s e empl oym entact i on w i th r es pectt o the oppos i t i on fo r u n e m p lo ym e n t. R . 3 9 6 9 -7 0 . Pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el or al l yr es ponded t o the court ’ s rul i ng byr epr es ent i ng th a t M s. W ill iam s’s u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e fits had been s us pended, t o w hi ch the dis t ri ctcou rtrepl i ed thati tw as open t o recon si deri ng i t s ruli ng , i nv i t i ng M s. W ill iam s’s c o u n se l to “ b rin g [ th e e v id e n c e in th e tra n sc rip t es tab lish in g th is] to [ its] a tten tio n ,” R . 3 9 7 2 , ad d in g th a t, “if I’m w ro n g o n th a t, y o u c a n a sk m e toB e fo re th e d istric t co u rt, M s. W ill iam s a lso p u rsu e d a re talia tio n c laim 3 underN ew M exi co l aw , R . 87- 88, buts he di d notm ent i on thatcl ai m i n her o p e n in g b ri e f

b e fo re th is c o u rt a n d th u s w a iv e d it. S e e Hi l lv . Ke mp , 478 F. 3d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 5 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). -8- r econs i dert he r et al i at i on cl ai m . ” R . 3973. M s . W i l l i ams’ s couns el t ook the di s t r i ctcourtup on t hi s offe r , as ki ng i tt o r econs i deri t s rul i ng and poi nt i ng the di s t r i ctcourtt o fourpages of M s . W i l l i ams’ s t es t i m onypurpor t i ng t o s how that sh e h ad test ifi ed as to an interrup ti o n in h er b en efit s. R . 4 5 7 6 . T h e d istri ct co u rt found, how ever , t hatnone of thi s t es t i m onyes t abl i s hed “a nyces s at i on, su sp e n sio n , o r d im in u tio n ” o f M s. W ill iam s’s b e n e fits a n d d e n ied th e m o tio n to r econs i der . R . 4578- 79. 3 U l t i m at el y , aft ert he compl et i on of 10 day s of t es t i m onydur i ng w hi ch 34 w itn e ss e s te stified , the ju ryre tu rn e d a v e rd ict fo r d e fe n d a n ts o n a ll co u n ts s u b m itte d to it. II M s . W i l l i ams’ s appea l of the di s pos i t i on of the r emai ni ng as pect s of her T it le V II r etali ati o n claim – arisi n g fro m M r. F ran k ’s th rea ts an d W . D . S p o rt s’s o p p o sitio n to h e r a p p lica tio n fo r u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e fits – is th e m o st le g a lly s i gni fi canti s s ue bef

or e us and s o w e tur n t o i tfi r s t . I n r evi ew i ng a di s tr i ct c o u r t ’ s g r a n to f

a mo t i o n fo rj u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w de novo , w e t ake a s our s t ar t i ng poi ntt hat [s ] uch a j udgm enti s w arr ant ed onl yi f the evi dence poi nt s butone w ayand i s s us cept i bl e t o no r eas onabl e i nfer ence s s uppor t i ng theIn su cc essiv e c ase s, w e h av e d raw n thes e e lem en ts from T it le V II’ s 4 l anguage pr ovi di ng t hat“[i ] ts hal l be an unl aw ful empl oym entpr act i ce foran empl oy ert o di s cr i m i nat e aga i ns tanyof hi s empl oy ees orappl i cant s for empl oym ent. . . beca us e he ha s oppos ed anypr act i ce made an unl aw ful e m p lo ym e n t p ra c tic e b yth is s u b c h a p te r, o r b e c a u s e h e h a s m a d e a c h a rg e . . . undert hi s s ubchapt er , ” 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 3( a) , and fr om t he fa m i l i arbur dens hi ft i ng fr amew or k s etouti n McD onnel lD ouglas C or p. v. G r een , 411 U . S. 792 (19 7 3 ). -9- par t yoppos i ng t he mot i on. W e do notw ei gh the evi dence , pas s on t he cr edi bi l i t yof the w i t nes s es , ors ubs t i tut e ourconcl us i ons for t hos e of the j ur y . H ow ever , w e mustent erj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw i n favorof the movi ng par tyi f ther e i s no l egal l ys uffi ci ent evi dent i arybas i s w i t h r es pectt o a cl ai m ordefe ns e underthe contr ol l i ng l aw . W e mustvi ew the evi dence and anyi nfer ence s t o be d r a w n t h e r e f

r o m m o s tfa v o r a b l y t o th e n o n - m o v i n g p a r ty. McInnis v. Fai r

f i eld C m t ys . , Inc. , 458 F. 3d 1129, 1136 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); s ee als o F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 0 (a ). I n conduct i ng ourr evi ew , w e ar e mi ndful of and mustappl ythe s ame l egal pr i nci pl es as t he di s t r i ctcour t . I n a ca s e forr et al i at i on underT i t l e V I I , a pl ai nt i ff m us tes t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie cas e of r et al i at i on bydemonstr at i ng that“( 1) s he eng aged i n p rot ect ed o pp osi t i on t o d i scr i m i nati on ; (2) she suffered an adv ers e act i on t hat a r easona ble em ploy ee w ou l d h ave fou nd m at eri al ; and (3) there i s a caus al nexus betw een he roppos i t i on and the empl oy er ’ s adver s e ac t i on. ” A n to n io v. Sygm a Netw ork, Inc. , 4 5 8 F .3 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). If a p lain tiff

is 4 unabl e t o m ake outa p rim a fa c ie cas e, j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw i s appr opr i at e. See Aqui l i no v. Uni v. of Kan. , 268 F. 3d 930, 936 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( r ever s i ngWh ite is pro p erlyap p li ed to this ca se b ec au se th e S u p rem e C o u rt 5 in stru c ts th a t “[ a ]n a p p e llate c o u rt m u st a p p lyth e law in e ffe c t at th e tim e it r ender s i t s deci s i on. ” G ul f O f f s hor e C o. v. Mobi lO i lC or p. , 453 U . S. 473, 486 n .1 6 (1 9 8 1 ) (in ter n a l alte ra tio n a n d q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); a c c o rdMc G o w a n v . C ity o f E u fa la , 472 F. 3d 736, 741 n. 1 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( appl y i ng Wh ite t o cas e pendi ng o n ap p ea l) . -10- di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a pos t - ver di ctm ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw w h e re c o u rt h e ld p la in tiff d id n o t s u ffe r f

ro m a n a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n ). B efor e us , t he fi r s tel ementof the p rim a fa c ie c a s e i s n o ti n d i s p u t e a n d s o we focu s our at t enti on on t he latt er tw o elem ents . A Th e n a tu r e o f

t h e s e c o n d e l e me n tr e c e n t l ywa s th e s u bj e c to f S u p r e me C our tr evi ew i n B u rlin g to n No rth e rn & S a n ta Fe R a ilw ay C o mp a ny v . Wh ite ,

__ U .S . __ , 1 2 6 S . C t. 24 0 5 (2 0 0 6 ), a d e c isio n iss u e d d u rin g th e p e n d e n c yo f th is app eal and regar ding w hich w e request ed sup plem ental bri efi ng from the p art i es. 5 B efor e Wh ite , s om e ci r cui t s hel d thata cl ai m forr et al i at i on l i es onl yw hen the e m p lo y e r e ffe c ts a n a d v e rs e a c tio n w ith in th e w o rk p la c e . Wh ite , 126 S. C t . at 2410 ( di s cus s i ng Whi t e v. B ur l i ngt on N. & Santa Fe Ry. C o. , 364 F. 3d 789, 795 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 )). T h a t is, the e m p lo y e e n e e d e d n o t o n lyto su ffe r a m a ter ially adver s e ac t i on, butt he cons equenc e of thatact i on had t o come i n the empl oym ent c o n tex t it se lf, in th e fo rm o f a ter m in a tio n , d e m o tio n , o r th e lik e . B yc o n tra st, ot herci r cui t s al l ow ed cl ai m s t o pr ocee d w hen the empl oy er ’ s adver s e ac t i on had c o n s e q u e n c e s b e fa llin g th e p la in tiff o u ts id e th e e m p lo ym e n t e n v ir o n m e n t. Id. at-11-

2 4 1 0 -1 1 (c itin g , in tera lia , R ochon v. G onz al es , 4 3 8 F . 3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 7 - 1 8 ( D. C. C i r . 2006) ) . Seeki ng t o r es ol ve thi s ci r cui ts pl i t , the C our ti n Wh ite s i ded w i th t he latte r sc h o o l o f

th o u g h t, rec o g n izin g th a t “[ a ]n e m p lo y e r c a n e ffe c tiv e lyre talia te agai ns tan empl oy ee” forexer ci s i ng hi s orherpr ot ect ed r i ght s “byt aki ng act i ons n o t dir ec tl yrelated to h is [o r he r] em p loym en t or b yca u sing h im [o r he r] ha rm outs i de t he w or kpl ace . ” Id. a t 2 4 1 2 . T he C our tw entfur t her , how ever , and el uci dat ed the natur e of the r et al i at or yconductneede d t o s t at e a c l ai m . T he C our tbegan bycaut i oni ng that T i t l e V I I pr ot ect s i ndi vi dual s “notfr om al l r et al i at i on” butonl yfr om r et al i at i on “thatpr oduces an i nj ur yorharm . ” Id. at2414. I n turn, the C our texpl ai ned that foran i nj ur yorharm t o be ac t i onabl e, i tm us tal s o r i s e t o a r equi s i t e “l evel of s er i ous nes s . ” Id. at2415. T o qual i fyunderthi s s t andar d, a pl ai nt i ff musts how th a t “a re a so n a b le e m p lo y e e w o u ld h a v e fo u n d th e c h a llen g e d a c tio n m a ter ially a d v e rse , w h ich in th is c o n tex t m e a n s it w e ll m ig h t h a v e d iss u a d e d a re a so n a b le w or kerfr om m aki ng ors uppor t i ng a cha r ge of di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Id . ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). R e q u irin g th is le v e l o f a d v e rsity , the C o u rt in stru c ted , is n e c e s s a ry “ to s e p a ra te s ig n ific a n t f ro m tr iv ia l h a rm s ” a n d in c o n v e n ie n c e s . Id. In h er b ri efs to this co u rt , M s. W il li am s co n tend s sh e sa ti sfies th is st an d ard i n atl eas tt w o s epar at e w ay s . Fi r s t , s he ar gues that , contr aryt o the di s tr i ct cou rt ’s ho l ding, her em ploym ent benefit s w ere s u s p e n d e d fo r a p e ri o d o f tim e . S e c o n d , s h e s u b mi t s t h a t , e v e n i f h e rb e n e fi t s we r e n e v e rs u s p e n d e d , W. D.-12-

Spor t s ’ s t hr eat s and i t s pr es ent at i on of fa l s e ac cus at i ons t o the N M D O L aft erher ter m in a tio n w e re su c h th a t a ju ryc o u ld fin d th e m su fficie n t to d e ter a re a so n a b le empl oy ee f

r om br i ngi ng a r et al i at i on cl ai m . W e ana l y ze he rar gum ent s i n turn. B W e do notques t i on t hatpr oof s ugges t i ng M s . W i l l i ams’ s unempl oym ent b e n e fits w e re d e n ied o r su sp e n d e d , ev e n fo r a p e rio d o f tim e , w o u ld su ffice to s t at e a c l ai m forr el i ef i n appr opr i at e ca s es ; i ndeed, i n Wh ite it self the p lai n ti ff ’s claim fo r retal iat ion rested , in p art, o n a su sp en sion w ith o u t pay , an d the C o u rt r eadi l yacknow l edged thatt he pl ai nt i ff s uffe r ed a c ogni zabl e harm w hen s he and h e r fa m ily h a d to liv e w ith o u t a n in c o m e fo r 3 7 d a y s . Wh ite , 1 2 6 S . C t. a t 2 4 1 7 . A s th e C o u rt p u t it , “[ m ]a n yre a so n a b le e m p lo y e e s w o u ld fin d a m o n th w ith o u t a pay chec k t o be a s er i ous har ds hi p. ” Id. U nfo rtun at el yfor M s. W i l l i am s, how ever , t he r ecor d i n t hi s cas e does nots uppor thercont ent i on thather u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e fits w e re e v e r i n te rr u p te d . M s. W ill iam s p o in ts u s to o n e (a n d o n lyo n e ) p o rtio n o f trial te stim o n yin ai d of herar gum entot herw i s e: “I had s t ar t ed gett i ng [the unempl oym ent b e n e fi t s ] , a n d t h e n I g o ta l e t t e r , a n d th e yt o l d me th a tI wo u l d n ’ tr e c e i v e [ th e m] a n ymo r e u n t i l a f

t e rt h e – t h e h e a r i n g , b u tt o g o a h e a d a n d k e e p c e r t i f y i n g . ” R. 2 7 4 9 . W h il e this testi m o n yind icates tha t M s. W il li am s rec eive d a lett er, p re su m a b lyf

ro m th e N M D O L , an n o u n c in g its in ten tio n to su sp e n d p a ym e n ts p e n d i n g a h e a r i n g , a s t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tfo u n d wh e n c o n f r o n t e d wi th th i s s a me-13-

s n ip p e t o f

te s tim o n ya t d ir e c te d v e rd ic t, s ee supra at 7-8 , itca n b ea r no m o re w ei ghtt han that . M s . W i l l i ams has poi nt ed nei therthe di s tr i ctcourtnorus t o any test im o n yo r ev iden ce that h er b en efit s w ere act ual l y su sp en d ed fo r any per i od of t i m e, a fa i l i ng w e ca nnotover l ook and one w hi ch s he ea s i l ycoul d have a voi ded sim p lyb ytes tify in g , if s h e w a s a b le to d o so , tha t h e r b e n e fits w e re , in fa c t, s us pended. N ei t hercan he rt es t i m onygi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence al ong thes e l i nes exce ptbyr es or tt o i m perm i s s i bl e s pecul at i on. W e do notknow , forexampl e, w hen M s . W i l l i ams r ece i ved the l et t er , how cl os e i tw as t o the hea r i ng dat e, or w h e th e r a p ra c tica llysu fficie n t g a p o f tim e e x iste d fo r a d m in istra to rs to e ffe c t a di s cont i nuat i on of herbenef i t s . A nd, s i gni fi cant l yon thi s s cor e, el s ew her e i n her tes tim o n y , M s. W ill iam s h a d th is e x c h a n g e w ith c o u n se l (th o u g h sh e fa ils to di r ectus t o i ti n herbr i efs ) : “Q . A gai n, m yques t i on i s , the fa ctthaty our empl oy erchal l enged y ourr i ghtt o unempl oym entbenef i t s di dn’ thave a nyi m pact on t he amountof bene fi t s y ou got ? A . N o. N o. ” R . 2641- 42. O n thi s r ecor d, as devel oped byM s . W i l l i ams aft erexhaus t i ve di s coveryand l engthytr i al pr ocee di ngs , w e s i m pl ycannotdi s agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s as s es s m entat tr ia l th a t s h e fa ile d to c re a te a n is s u e fo r t h e ju ry. See Tr uck Ins . Exchange v. MagneTek, Inc. , 360 F. 3d 1206, 1216 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( aff i r m i ng the di s tr i ct cou rt ’s grantof sum m aryj ud gm ent, i n li gh tof the evidence p res ented, becau se

“ [j] u ry v e rd ic ts m a yn o t b e b a s e d o n s p e c u la tio n ” ).-14- C T h is, h o w ev er, be g ins rathe r th an en d s o u r i n q u iry . S ep ara te an d ap art f ro m w h e th e r h e r b e n e fits w e re a c tu a llysu sp e n d e d , M s. W ill iam s c o n ten d s th a t, u n d er Wh ite ’ s form ul at i on, s he nee d nots how anys uch t angi bl e ec onom i c or p s y c h o l o g i c a l h a r m. I n s t e a d , s h e a r g u e s th a tM r . F r a n k ’ s th r e a t s a n d W. D. Spor t s ’ s conduct , cons i s t entw i t h thatthr eat , i n oppos i ng herunempl oym ent benef i t s cl ai m , w oul d have di s s uaded a r eas onabl e per s on fr om avai l i ng her s el f of T i t l e V I I r e m e d i e s . A n d t h i s , s h e s u b m i t s , i s s u ffi c i e n tt o s a t i s f y Wh ite ’s m at er i al l yadver s e ac t i on r equi r ement . W . D . Spor t s r es ponds that , even unde r Wh ite , a Ti t l e V I I pl ai nt i ff mustpr oduce e vi dence of “a ctual harm ( w hether m onet aryorot herw i s e) ” t o m ake outa r et al i at i on cl ai m . W e ar e thus confr ont ed w i t h t he ques t i on w hats or tof adve r s e ac t i on i s neede d t o es t abl i s h a cl ai m for re talia tio n a n d th u s, a t b o tto m , h o w b e st to in terp re t Wh ite ’ s di r ect i on. 1 W e a p p r o a c h t h i s i n t e rp r e t i v e q u e s t i o n b ya c k n o wl e d g i n g th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s focus i n Wh ite on m aki ng act i onabl e onl yconductbyan empl oy erthat caus es “i nj ur yorharm . ” Wh ite , 126 S. C t . at2414. T he C our texpr es s l ys t at ed t hat“[n] o one doubt s t hatt he t erm ‘ di s cr i m i nat e aga i ns t ’ [as us ed i n the s t atut e] r efe r s t o di s t i nct i ons ordi ffe r ence s i n tr eatm entthati nj ur e pr ot ect ed i ndi vi dual s . ” Id . a t 2 4 1 0 ; s ee als o i d. at2412 ( “The ant i - r et al i at i on pr ovi s i on s eeks t o pr event h a rm to in d iv id u a ls b a s e d o n w h a t th e yd o , i . e. th e irc o n d u c t.” ).-15-

T he C our tpr ocee ded t o expl ai n, how ever , thatthe “s t andar d forj udgi ng harm m us tbe obj ect i ve, ” i d. at2415, and “s houl d be j udged fr om the per s pect i ve of a r eas onabl e per s on i n t he pl ai nt i ff’ s pos i t i on, cons i der i ng al l the ci r cumst ance s , ” i d. at2416 ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he C our tadded that su ch an o bjecti v e stan d ard h as th e v irtue o f b eing “jud ici all yad m inistrab le. It av o ids the u n ce rt ainties an d u n fa ird iscrep an cies tha t can p lagu e a jud ici al effo rt t o det erm i ne a pl ai nt i ff’ s unus ual s ubj ect i ve fe el i ngs . W e have emphasi zed the need forobj ect i ve s t andar ds i n otherT i t l e V I I cont ext s , and thos e s ame concerns ani m at e ourdeci s i on her e. ” Id . at 24 1 5 . Ind ee d , the C o u rt p ro c e e d e d to p o in t to i t s pr i ordeci s i ons i n P enn sylvan i a S tate Po l i ce v. Su ders , 5 4 2 U . S . 1 2 9 (20 0 4 ), and Har r is v. Forkl i

f tSys t em s , Inc. , 510 U . S. 17 ( 1993) , as s i m i l arcas es i n w hi ch th e C o u rt lo o k e d to o bje c tiv e s ta n d a rd s to d e te rm in e e m p lo y e r l ia b ility. Ha rr is , i n p art i cular , w e think affo rds a hel pfu l analogyfor asses si ng the p art i es’ compet i ng cont ent i ons aboutt he natur e of Wh ite ’s a d v e rs e a c tio n re q u ir e m e n t. S e e Wh ite , 1 2 6 S . C t. a t 2 4 1 5 . I n Ha rr is , t he pl ai nt i ff w as s ubj ect ed t o a hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entcr eat ed b yh e r b o s s ’s re p e a te d g e n d e r- b a s e d in s u lts a n d s e x u a l in n u e n d o . 5 1 0 U .S . a t 1 9 . T h e d istri ct co u rtruled that, ev en tho u g h the p lai n ti ff w as o ffen d ed b yh er b o ss’s comm ent s and thata r eas onabl e w om an l i kew i s e w oul d have be en offended, the pl ai nt i ff w as nevert hel es s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef be caus e the envi r onm entw as not “s o s ever e as t o be expe ct ed t o s er i ous l yaffect[her ] ps y chol ogi cal w el l - bei ng”;-16-

nei t herdi d t he di s t r i ctcour t“bel i eve that[s he] w as s ubj ect i vel ys o offe nded that s he s uffe r ed i nj ur y . ” Id. at20 ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) . U l t i m at el y , the Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed thi s as t he appr opr i at e t es tforhos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent cl ai m s , expl ai ni ng t hata pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove onl ythatthe empl oy er ’ s conduct w a s s o se v e re o r p e rv a siv e th a t an o bjec tiv e lyre a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld fin d it abus i ve orhos t i l e, and thatt he vi ct i m her s el f per cei ved the envi r onm entt o be a b u s iv e . Id . at 2 1 . T h is s tan d a rd , ac c o rd in g to th e C o u rt, “ta k e s th e m id d le p a th betw een maki ng act i onabl e anyconductthati s m er el yoffe ns i ve and r equi r i ng t he conductt o caus e a t angi bl e ps y chol ogi cal i nj ury . ” Id . T he C our tfur ther expl ai ned that“Ti t l e V I I comes i nt o pl aybefor e the har as s i ng conductl eads t o a nervous br eakdow n, ” and thata di s cr i m i nat or i l yabus i ve w or k envi r onm ent , even one thatdoes not s er i ous l yaffectempl oy ees ’ ps y chol ogi cal w el l - bei ng, can a nd oft en w i l l detr actfr om empl oy ees ’ j ob per form ance , di s cour age e m pl oy ees f ro m re m a in in g o n th e jo b , o r k e e p th e m f ro m a d v a n c in g in th e ir car eer s . M or ever , even w i thoutr egar d t o thes e t angi bl e effec t s , the veryfac tt hatt he di s cr i m i nat oryconductw as s o s ever e orpervas i ve t hati tcr eat ed a w or k envi r onm entabus i ve t o empl oy ees beca us e of their race , g en d er, r eli g ion , o r na ti o n al origin o ffen d s T it le V II’ s b ro a d ru le o f

w o rk p la c e e q u a lity. Id. at22. I n r ej ect i ng t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r equi r ementthatpl ai nt i ff pr ove a ps y chol ogi cal ( oreconomi c) i nj ury , the C our thel d that“[s ] uch an i nqui rym ay needl es s l yfocus t he fa ct fi nder ’ s att ent i on on concr et e ps y chol ogi cal harm , an e lem e n t T itl e V II d o e s n o t re q u ire . C e rta in lyT itl e V II b a rs c o n d u c t th a t w o u ld-17-

se rio u slya ffe c t a r e a so n a b le p e rso n ’s p sy c h o lo g ica l w e ll-b e in g , b u t th e sta tu te is notl i m i t ed t o s uch conduc t . ” Id. T he C our t ’ s r efe r ence t o Ha rr is s ugges t s the appr opr i at enes s of fol l ow i ng an ana l ogous “mi ddl e path” i n t he r et al i at i on ar ena. T he pl ai nt i ff i n Wh ite ar gued th a t any conductbyan empl oy eri n r et al i at i on fora pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyw as a c t i o n a b l e ; t h e e mp l o y e ra r g u e d th a to n l yth o s e a c t i o n s wh i c h a ffe c t e d th e t e r ms an d co n d it ion s o f e m p loym en t w ere ac ti o n ab le. W h il e rejecti n g the e m p loy er’s pos i t i on, 126 S. C t . at2411- 14, t he C our ti n Whi t e also rejected the p lai n ti ff ’s p o s itio n th a t a n e m p lo y e e w a s p ro te c te d f ro m “ a ll r e ta lia tio n ” u n d e r T itle V II , i d. at2414, offe r i ng i ns t ead a path betw een thes e extr emes foc us ed on w hetherthe empl oy er ’ s conduct“w el l m i ghthave di s s uaded a r eas onabl e w or kerfr om m aki ng ors uppor t i ng a cha r ge of di s cr i m i nat i on, ” id . at 24 1 5 (i n terna l qu o tat ion o m itted). A l l of thi s i s byw ayof s ay i ng thatw e do notr ead Whi t e as r equi r i ng, as defe ndant s w oul d have i t , t hatM s . W i l l i ams m us tpr ove s om e t angi bl e, s ubj ect i ve ps y chol ogi cal orm onet aryi nj ur y . Such a r equi r ementw oul d m ake no s ens e of Wh ite ’ s emphasi s on t he nee d foran obj ect i ve t es t , i t s conce rn forj udi ci al admi ni s t r abi l i t y , and i t s i nvocat i on of Ha rr is . Cr i t i c a l l y , n e i th e rwo u l d W. D. Spor t s ’ s m or e r i gor ous t es tful l yhonorT i t l e V I I ’ s purpos e of pr ohi bi t i ng em p loy er a cti o n s tha t no t on lyim p o se tan g ible h arm s b u t al so tho se th at “a re l i kel y t o det ervi ct i m s of di s cr i m i nat i on fr om compl ai ni ng t o the EE O C , the cour t s , and thei rempl oy er s . ” Id. at2415 ( emphasi s added; i nt ernal quot at i onT o be s ur e, t he ana l ogyt o Ha rr is is n o t q u ite c o m p lete . T h e C o u rt in 6 Harris t e a s e d t h e s t a n d a r d s u ffi c i e n tt o s t a t e a h o s t i l e wo r k e n v i r o n me n tc l a i m, w h ich in p art requ ir es th at th e v ict im su bjecti v elyp erc eive the e m p loy er’s conductt o have “ al t er ed the condi t i ons of the vi ct i m ’ s empl oym ent , ” fr om t he s t atut or yl anguage . 510 U . S. at21- 22. T he C our ti n Wh ite , m eanw hi l e, m ade no m ent i on of a pa r al l el s ubj ect i ve t es tand under s cor ed the di ffe r ence s betw een the s t atut or yl anguage cont ai ned i n the “c or e ant i - di s cr i m i nat i on pr ovi s i on” r el i ed upon i n Ha rr is a n d th a t in th e a n ti- re ta lia tio n p ro v is io n a t is s u e h e re . S e e Wh ite , 126 S. C t . at2411- 12. A s r epea t edl yemphasi zed bythe C our ti n Wh ite , t he c o n d u c t su fficie n t to sta te a re talia tio n c laim is th a t “h a rm f u l to th e p o in t th a t [ it] coul d w el l di s s uade a r eas onabl e w or kerfr om m aki ng ors uppor t i ng a cha r ge of di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Id. a t 2 4 0 9 . -18- om i t t ed) . T o w arr antt r i al , t her efor e, w e hol d thata pl ai nt i ff ne ed onl ys how that a ju ryc o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t a r e a so n a b le e m p lo y e e in M s. W ill iam s’s sh o e s w o u ld have found t he defendant ’ s conducts uffi ci ent l yadver s e thathe ors he w el l m i ght have be en di s s uaded bys uch conduc tfr om m aki ng ors uppor t i ng a cha r ge of di s cr i m i nat i on. 6 2 A pp l y i ng t his st and ard, and view i ng t he ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o ra b le to M s . W illia m s , s h e h a s a d d u c e d s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e to w a rr a n t tr ia l. Up o n h e rd i s c h a r g e , M r . F r a n k a l l e g e d l ywa rn e d M s . W i l l i a ms “ n o tt o fi g h t ” h i m, a n d th a t if s h e d id so , ru m o rs a b o u t h e r se x u a l co n d u c t w o u ld b e m a d e p u b lic w i t houtr egar d t o t hei rver aci t y ; thathe w oul d s eek t o rui n herm arr i age; and that sh e sh o u ld c o n sid e r th e re p e rc u ss io n s o f h e r a c tio n s o n h e r fa m ily . W .D . S p o rts then arg u ab lyp roc ee d ed to m ak e g o o d o n thes e thre ats, o p p o sing M s. W il li am s’s un em ploym ent benefit s i n a sub m i ssi on al l eging t hat the firm had fi red M s.See Ber r y v. St evi ns on C hevr ol et , 74 F. 3d 980, 986 ( 10th C i r . 1996) 7 ( r ecogni zi ng t hatt he fi l i ng of know i ngl yfal s e cr i m i nal char ges agai ns ta pl ai nt i ff, becau se of t heiri m pact on fu ture potent i al em ploym ent, can co nst i tute an adv ers e e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n fo r th e p u rp o se s o f a re talia tio n c laim ); see also Vel i konj a v. G onz al es , 466 F. 3d 122, 124 ( D . C . C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng thatt he “pr os pect ” of a n i nves t i gat i on r es ul t i ng fr om t he empl oy er ’ s fal s e ac cus at i ons , dur i ng the pendenc yof w hi ch the empl oy ee w as pr event ed fr om r ece i vi ng pr om ot i ons , and w hi ch pr event ed herfr om obt ai ni ng pr i zed a s s i gnm ent s , coul d di s s uade a (c o n tin u e d ...) -19- W i l l i ams fors exual m i s conductamount i ng t o s exual har as s m ent , R . 1734, an ap p are n t falsi tyg iven M r. F ran k ’s ca n d id ad m issi o n at tri al th at he d id n o t fi re M s. W il li am s fo r suc h b eh av ior, R . 3 8 0 8 -09 . W . D . S p o rt s d id all th is, m o reo v er, i n w hat the jurycou l d find w as an effo rtt o im po se y etano ther pl ai nlyadv ers e re p e rc u ss io n o n M s. W ill iam s a n d h e r fa m ily– th e lo ss o f in c o m e a ss o c iate d w ith unempl oym entbenef

i t s . T he companythen al l egedl ys ol i ci t ed nothi ng s hor tof a qui d pr o quo – pr opos i ng t o dr op i t s oppos i t i on t o M s . W i l l i ams’ s unempl oym ent benef i t s i f M s . W i l l i ams dr opped herdi s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s – thus s t arkl ypos i ng M s. W ill iam s w ith th e c h o ice w h e th e r to se e k v in d ica tio n o f h e r T itl e V II rig h ts orr i s k a form erempl oy er ’ s i nt ent i onal effor t s t o damage herr eput at i on and s tym ie h e r r e c e ip t o f

in c o m e . W e do notdoubtt hata r eas onabl e empl oy ee c oul d w el l fi nd s uch a c o m b in a tio n o f

th re a ts a n d a c tio n s ta k e n w ith th e d e sig n o f im p o sin g b o th economi c and ps y chol ogi cal harm s uffi ci entt o di s s uade hi m orherfr om m aki ng o r su p p o rtin g a c h a rg e o f d isc rim in a tio n . In d e e d , w e h a v e fo u n d les se r c o n d u c t to su ffice u n d e r sim ilar leg a l sta n d a rd s. In su m , W .D . S p o rts m iss e s th e m a rk in its 7( . . . cont i nued) 7 re a s o n a b le e m p lo y e e f ro m m a k in g o r s u p p o rt in g a c h a rg e o f d is c ri m in a tio n ). W e d o n o t su g g e st, o f c o u rse , tha t ev e ryin c o n v e n ien c e a n e m p lo y e e is 8 m a d e to e n d u re c a n b e a c tio n a b le re ta lia tio n . S e e Wh ite , 126 S. C t . at2415 (d istin g u ish in g “ sig n ifica n t . . . h a rm s” f ro m “ m in o r a n n o y a n c e s” ); acco rd C ar m ona- R i ver a v. P uer t o R i co , 464 F. 3d 14, 20 ( 1s tC i r . 2006) ( “W hi l e a de l ay i n pr ovi di ng t he ac comm odat i ons neede d t o m eeta di s abi l i tym aycaus e a s i gni fi canti nj uryorharm t o a di s abl ed per s on, t he r ecor d i n thi s cas e di s cl os es no su c h h a rm . In c o n v e n ien c e , y e s, b u t n o a c tu a l h a rm .”); Higgi ns v. G onz al es , 481 F. 3d 578, 591 ( 8t h C i r . 2007) ( purpor t ed tr ans ferof pl ai nt i ff t o new ci ty , “eve n g iv e n th e in c o n v e n ien c e o f a m o v e , . . . d o e s n o t rise to th e lev e l o f a m a ter ially adver s e ac t i on”) . B utM s . W i l l i ams has aggr egat ed evi dence w el l bey ond w hat a n yre a so n a b le e m p lo y e e w o u ld d isc a rd a s m e re lyin c o n v e n ien t. In d e e d , ev e n if d e fe n d a n t’s p ro ffe re d sta n d a rd – th a t M s. W ill iam s m u st p ro v e so m e tan g ib le ps y chol ogi cal orm onet aryi nj ur y– w er e corr ect , w e w oul d hol d thats he mett hat s t andar d her e, gi ven hert es t i m onyt hats he s uffe r ed ps y chol ogi cal di s tr es s fr om t hi s epi s ode and the undi s put ed fa ctt hat , butforW . D . Spor t s ’ s oppos i t i on, N M D O L w oul d nothave s chedul ed a he ar i ng orotherw i s e r econs i der ed i t s i ni t i al d e te rm in a tio n o f

M s . W illia m s ’s e n title m e n t to u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e fits . See , e .g ., R . 2606 (M s. W il li am s rec all ed that “the u n em p loym en t hea ri n g w as v eryh ard

. . . becau se [she] tho ug ht . . . [W . D . S po rt s] had t o tel l t he truth”; and becau se W .D . S p o rts h a d n o t to ld th e tru th a t th e h e a rin g o r in its o p p o sitio n sta tem e n t, that sh e “ d idn ’tfe el l ike [ sh e] w as g ett ing a fair ch an ce at [h er] u n em p loym en t. ”); R . 2607- 08 ( M s . W i l l i ams “c r i ed a l ot ” as a r es ul tof W . D . Spor t s ’ s oppos i t i on a n d w a s d ia g n o s e d w ith d e p re s s io n s h o rt ly af te r t h e h e a ri n g ). -20- a rg u m e n t b e c a u se m a ter ial ta n g ib le e c o n o m ic o r p sy c h o lo g ica l d a m a g e is c e r t a i n l y s u ffi c i e n tb u tn o tn e c e s s a ry t o s a t i s f y Wh ite ’ s r equi s i t es ; i n the c i r c u ms t a n c e s h e r e p r e s e n t , t h e u n l a wf u l c h o i c e W . D. S p o r t s p u tt o M s . W i l l i a ms b yi t s t h r e a t s a n d a c t i o n s i s s u ffi c i e n tt o s e e d h e rc l a i m. 8 D D efe ndant s s ugges tt hatj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw s houl d be ent er ed on t he al t ernat e gr ound t hatM s . W i l l i ams fai l ed t o pr oduce e vi dence of a c aus al-21-

connec t i on betw een he rpr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyand the cha l l enge t o herunempl oym ent b e n e fits . W e a re u n a b le to a g re e . “[A ] caus al connec t i on i s es t abl i s hed w her e the pl ai nt i ff pr es ent s evi dence of ci r cumst ance s thatj us t i fyan i nfer ence of r et al i at or ym ot i ve, s uch as pr ot ect ed conductcl os el yfol l ow ed byadver s e ac t i on. ” MacKenz i e v. C i t y and C ount

y of D enve r , 41 4 F . 3d 12 66 , 12 79 (10t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( i nternal quotat i on s om i t t ed). M s. W illia m s file d h e r d is c ri m in a tio n c h a rg e b e fo re s h e w a s fir e d o n M a rc h 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 . W . D . Spor t s ’ s w r i t t en s t at ementoppos i ng herunempl oym entbenef i t s w as dat ed Ap r i l 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 , a l t h o u g h i td o e s n o ta p p e a rt o h a v e b e e n r e c e i v e d b yth e NM DOL u n t i l M a y2 0 , 2 0 0 2 . R. 1 7 3 4 . T h i s t e mp o r a l n e x u s i s s u ffi c i e n tt o i n fe rth a tW. D. Spor t s ’ s oppos i t i on t o hercl ai m w as caus ed byM s . W i l l i ams’ s fi l i ng her d is c ri m in a tio n c h a rg e . See Metz l erv. Fed. Hom e Loan B ank of Topeka , 464 F. 3d 1164, 1171- 72 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng evi dence thatt erm i nat i on occurr ed no m o re th a n six w e e k s a f ter e m p lo y e r k n e w e m p lo y e e in ten d e d to e n g a g e in p ro tec ted a c tiv ityw a s “ v e ryc lo se lyc o n n e c ted in tim e ” a n d th u s s u fficie n t to es t abl i s h caus at i on ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) ) . E qual l yi m por t ant , dur i ng the N M D O L heari ng on her ent i t l em ent t o b enefi t s, M r. P hil l i ps al l eged l ysai d to M s. W i l l i ams, “I f y ou w i l l dr op y ourH um an R i ght s cl ai m , I w on’ tfi ghty ou on y our unempl oym ent . ” R . 2600. A r eas onabl e j urycoul d qui t e r eas onabl yi nferfr om this a d ir ec t cau sal l ink b etw ee n W . D . S p o rt s’s d ec isi o n to im p ed e M s. W il li am s’s-22-

benef i t s appl i cat i on and herdeci s i on t o pur s ue di s cr i m i nat i on char ges w i th the N M D O L H um an R i ght s D i vi s i on. W . D . Spor t s r es ponds t hatther e i s no evi dence thatW . D . Spor t s knew aboutM s . W i l l i ams’ s di s cr i m i nat i on char ge befor e i tfi l ed i t s w r i t t en s t at ement o p p o s i n g h e rb e n e fi t s . Ap p e l l e e ’ s An s we rBr . a t3 9 - 4 0 . Bu tM s . W i l l i a ms pr oduced e vi dence att r i al t hat , s om et i m e i n A pr i l , one of M s . W i l l i ams’ s form er co- w or ker s , C hancyW i l s on, cal l ed M s . W i l l i ams t o t el l herthatW . D . Spor t s w as m a k i n g a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s tM s . W i l l i a m s a n d , l a t e r , th a tW . D . S p o r t s ’ s a t t o rn e y, M r . Phi l l i ps , had bee n i n t he off i ce i nt ervi ew i ng atl eas ttw o otherempl oy ees a b o u t M s. W ill iam s’s d isc rim in a tio n c h a rg e . R . 2 5 9 7 -9 9 , 2 7 4 7 ; s ee als o R . 2850- 52 , 31 08 -09. V i ew i ng t he ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ostfavo rabl e t o M s. W i l l i am s, as w e ar e obl i ged t o do, t hi s i s enough evi dence fr om w hi ch a j ur ycoul d i nfer t hatW . D . Spor t s knew aboutherdi s cr i m i nat i on char ge w hen i toppos ed her ben efi t s. E H avi ng concl uded thatM s . W i l l i ams has m ade a p rim a fa c ie cas e of r et al i at i on, t w o ques t i ons r emai n underthe McD onnel lD ouglas bur den s hi ft i ng anal y s i s – w hetherdefe ndant s m i ghts how a l egi t i m at e non- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas on fo rt h e i ra d v e r s e a c t i o n s a g a i n s tM s . W i l l i a ms a n d , i f s o , wh e th e rM s . W i l l i a ms c a n d e m o n s tr a te th a t d e fe n d a n ts ’ p ro ffe re d re a s o n s w e re p re te x t fo r r e ta lia tio n . See You ngv. D i l l on C os. , 468 F. 3d 1243, 1249 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . A tthe-23-

compl et i on of M s . W i l l i ams’ s cas e i n chi ef, the di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw t o W . D . Spor t s on herr et al i at i on cl ai m beca us e, i n i t s vi ew , s he fai l ed t o pr ove a p rim a fa c ie c a se . A s a re su lt, W .D . S p o rts h a d n o o c c a sio n to p re se n t ev id e n c e (o r d e v e lo p a rg u m e n t) th a t n o n -d isc rim in a to ryre a so n s f u e led its t hr eat s and oppos i t i on t o M s . W i l l i ams’ s unempl oym entbenef i t s . T he br i efi ng on appea l s i m i l ar l yfocus es on w hetherM s . W i l l i ams has es t abl i s hed a p rim a fa c ie c a se o f re talia tio n . B u t ev e n a ss u m in g (w ith o u t d e c id in g ) th a t W .D . S p o rts c o u ld me e ti t s b u r d e n o f

e s t a b l i s h i n g s o me l e g i t i ma t e r e a s o n s fo ri t s c o n d u c t , we nonethel es s r emand t he mat t erfortr i al beca us e M s . W i l l i ams has pr oduced s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e o f p re te x t to w a rr a n t it. O u r p re c e d e n t in stru c ts th a t to sh o w p re tex t, M s. W ill iam s m u st s h o w th a t a r eas onabl e fa ctfi ndercoul d concl ude thatW . D . Spor t s thr eat ened he rand o p p o se d h e r u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e fits o n a c c o u n t o f h e r d e c isio n to in v o k e h e r T itl e V II p riv ileg e s ra th e r th a n in f u rth e ra n c e o f

so m e leg iti m a te b u sin e ss in ter e st:

“ th e re lev a n t ‘fa lsity ’ in q u iryis w h e th e r th e e m p lo y e r’s sta ted re a so n s w e re h e ld in g o o d fa ith a t th e tim e [ th e a d v e rse a c tio n w a s ta k e n ], ev e n if th e ylate r p ro v e to be u ntrue, or w hetherplai nti ff can show that the em ploy er’ s explanat i on w as so w e a k , im p lau sib le, in c o n sis ten t o r in c o h e re n t th a t a r e a so n a b le fa c t fin d e r c o u ld concl ude thati tw as notan hones t l yhel d bel i ef butr atherw as s ubt er fuge for [r et al i at i on] . ” Id . at 12 5 0 . O f c o u rse, th e “ n ature an d q u an tum o f p lai n ti ff ’s pr oof i s key , fort he Supr eme C our thas al s o expl ai ned thatevi dence aboutthe-24-

fal s i t yof an e m pl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed [l egi t i m at e bus i nes s ] expl anat i on . . . w i l l not alw ays be ade quat e t o s us t ai n l i abi l i ty . ” Id. ( i nt ernal quot at i on and ci t at i on o m itte d ). V iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to M s. W ill iam s, th e re is no ques t i on t hata j ur ycoul d fi nd thatW . D . Spor t s ’ s s t at ed r eas ons foroppos i ng M s . W i l l i ams’ s unempl oym entbenef i t s – t hatM s . W i l l i ams w as t erm i nat ed for ca u se b ec au se o f, am o n g o ther thin g s, sex u al m isco n d u ct – w ere p retex tual. In su p p o rto f it s su m m aryjud g m en t m o ti o n , W . D . S p o rt s arg u ed that M s. W il li am s’s “t erm i nat i on” w as t he “r es ul tof heri ns ubor di nat i on, ” omi t t i ng anym ent i on of h e r a lle g e d s e x u a l m is c o n d u c t. See R . 522- 23. A ttr i al , M r . Fr ank t es t i fi ed that he di d notactual l yfi r e M s . W i l l i ams, and thatherempl oym entdi d notcea s e on a c c o u n t o f

a n ys e x u a l m is c o n d u c t. See R . 3808- 09. A s the dec i s i on- m akerw ho t erm i nated M s. W i l l i am s, M r. F rank’s t est i m on ythat s he w as nott erm i nat ed, and t hatanyal l eged s exual m i s conductdi d notpr eci pi t at e M s . W i l l i ams’ s di s char ge, str o n g lysu g g ests that W . D . S p o rt s’s co n tr arystat em en ts t o the N M D O L w ere

“ pos thoc fa b ri ca ti o n [s] o r oth erw ise d id n o t actua ll ym o ti v ate” W . D . S p o rt s’s o p p o s itio n to h e r u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e fits . P lo tke v . Wh ite , 405 F. 3d 1092, 1102- 03 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) . N ei thercan thes e contr adi ct i ons b e re a d ilye x p lain e d a s s im p le m ista k e s. N e a rlyse v e n m o n th s a f ter W .D . S p o rts s u b mi t t e d i t s o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e NM DOL, W . D. S p o r t s a g a i n e mp l o y e d t h e s a me j ust i fi cat i on s of i t s deci si on t o term i nate M s. W i l l i am s – i ncludi ng t hat M s.O f c o u rse , w e d o n o t m e a n to su g g e st th a t th e ju ryis o b lig e d to c re d it 9 M s . W i l l i ams’ s ver s i on of eve nt s and fi nd l i abi l i ty ; w e hol d s i m pl yt hat , i n l i ght of the fact s pres ented t o u s, j ud gm ent as a m at t er of l aw i s i nap propri at e and M s. W i l l i ams i s ent i t l ed t o t ake he rcl ai m t o a j ur y . H avi ng r es ol ved thats uffi ci ent e v i d e n c e t o s h o w i njury exi s t s t o m er i ta j ur y ’ s r es ol ut i on, M s . W i l l i ams w i l l of c o u rse b e re q u ire d to sh o w a t trial w h a t dam ages s h e is e n title d to re c o v e r, a q u e s tio n o n w h ic h w e lik e w is e e x p re s s n o v ie w s a t th is tim e . S e e B a r b e rv . T. D. Wi l l i am s on, Inc. , 254 F. 3d 1223, 1226- 28 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( fi ndi ng no pl ai n err or w h ere juryaw ard ed d am ag es o f $ 1 fo r ho sti le w o rk e n v ir o n m en t cl aim w h ere jury w as i ns t ruct ed thati tm ayaw ar d nom i nal damages i f i tfi nds t hat“the l aw w as v io late d b u t th a t P lain tiff su ffe re d n o d a m a g e s” ); see a lso A zim i v. Jo rda n ’s Meats , Inc. , 4 5 6 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 5 & n . 3 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). -25- W i l l i ams had e ngaged i n s exual m i s conduct– t o the EE O C i n i t s r es pons e t o her char ges of di s cr i m i nat i on. R . 1736- 37. Fi nal l y , the qui d pr o quo a lleg e d ly pr opos ed byM r . Phi l l i ps on behal f of W . D . Spor t s al s o l eads t o a r eadyi nfer ence th a t W .D . S p o rts o p p o se d M s. W ill iam s’s re c e ip t o f u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e fits beca us e s he fi l ed a di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m and s oughtt o oppos e herbenef i t s i n the h o p e o f d i s s u a d i n g h e rf

r o m p u r s u i n g a d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m. Pr es ent ed w i t h t hes e s eemi ngl yi ncons i s t entand contr adi ct or yexpl anat i ons u n d e rg ird in g W .D . S p o rts’s o p p o sitio n to M s. W ill iam s’s u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e fits cl ai m , w e conc l ude thata j ur ycoul d r eas onabl yfi nd thatW . D . Spor t s ’ s s t at ed re a so n s fo r o p p o sin g M s. W ill iam ’s u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e fits w e re fa lse a n d th a t it “i s di s s embl i ng t o coverup a [r et al i at ory ] purpos e. ” R eev es v. Sanders on P l um bing P rods. , 5 3 0 U . S . 1 3 3 , 1 4 7 (20 0 0 ). 9 III-26-

B e y o n d M s. W ill iam s’s re talia tio n a rg u m e n t, pla in tiffs c o llec tiv e lysu b m it th a t a g re a t m a n yo f

th e d istric t co u rt’s ju ryin stru c tio n s w e re in e rro r a n d m e rit a new t r i al . I n as s es s i ng t hei rchal l enge on thi s s cor e, w e ar e obl i ged t o r evi ew t he i ns t ruct i ons as a w hol e and w e w i l l r ever s e onl yw hen “( 1) w e have s ubs t ant i al 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 rlyg u id e d th e ju ryin i t s del i ber at i ons ; and ( 2) w hen a de fi ci entj uryi ns truct i on i s pr ej udi ci al . ” McIn n is , 4 5 8 F .3 d a t 1 1 4 1 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). Fur t her , w hen a pa r t ydoes notobj ectt o an i ns truct i on befor e the di s tr i ct cour t( t he ca s e her e w i t h r es pectt o s ever al i ns truct i ons ) , w e ca n r evi ew the d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a d mi n i s t e rth e i n s tru c t i o n o n l yfo rp l a i n e rr o r . F e d . R. C iv . P . 5 1 (d )(2 ); Johns on ex r el . Es tat e of C ano v. Holm es , 455 F. 3d 1133, 1141 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . “U ndert hats t andar d, w e w i l l aff i r m unl es s the i ns truct i ons w er e pat ent l y , pl ai nl yerr oneous and pr ej udi ci al . ” Johns on , 455 F. 3d at1141 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ); accord A buan v. Level3 C om m c’ ns , Inc. , 353 F. 3d 1158, 1173 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( “W e mayonl yr ever s e [forpl ai n err or ] i n an exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance , w her e the err orw as pat ent l yerr oneous and pr ej udi ci al a n d w h e re f

u n d a m e n ta l inju s tic e w o u ld o th e rw is e o c c u r.” ). Pl ai nt i ffs s ubm i tt hatI ns t ruct i ons 6, 8, and 10, t o w hi ch theydi d obj ect befor e the di s t r i ctcour t , obs cur ed the j ur y ’ s abi l i tyt o cons i derthe t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s bys t at i ng t hatevi dence offe r ed t o pr ove an a bus i ve w or kpl ace d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rilyp ro v e a h o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t. B u t In stru c tio n 8 sim p ly-27-

s t at es t hat“[c ] rude l anguage al one do es notnece s s ar i l y amount t o s exual har as s m ent . ” R . 1641 ( emphase s added) . T he i ns truct i on thus i m pl i es thats uch crude l anguage can cons t i tut e s exual har as s m ent . A nd w hatI ns truct i on 8 l eft i m pl i ci t , I ns t ruct i on 11 m ade e xpl i ci t , cl ear l yi nform i ng the j urythat , w ei ghi ng w h e th e r a T itl e V II v io latio n o c c u rre d , it c o u ldc o n sid e r th e to talityo f th e fa c ts aboutt he pl ai nt i ffs ’ w or kpl ace envi r onm ent , i ncl udi ng act s w hi ch ar e not nece s s ar i l ys exual i n natur e: In c o n n e c tio n w ith th e c laim s fo r se x u a llyh o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t, i t is notnece s s aryt hatt he ac t s ati s s ue have cl ears exual over t ones ; r ather , any har as s m entorabus e di r ect ed atan empl oy ee thatw oul d notoccurbutfor hergenderm aycons t i tut e s exual har as s m entora hos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent i f i ti s s o s ever e and pe r vas i ve thati thas the purpos e oreffectof unr eas onabl yi nt er fer i ng w i th the empl oy ee’ s w or k per form ance and al t eri ng t he co nd i t i on s of he r em ploym ent, causi ng her t o sust ai n d am ages. R . 1 6 4 4 . Instruc ti o n 6 li k ew ise co rrectl yinfo rm ed the ju rythat “[ w ]he ther a w or k envi r onm enti s hos t i l e orabus i ve bas ed on gende rcan onl ybe det erm i ned byl ooki ng att he t ot al i t yof al l t he ci r cumst ance s . ” R . 1639. T hus , l ooki ng att he i ns t ruct i ons as a w hol e, w e ca nnots aythe j uryw as m i s l ed. P lain tiffs n e x t ch a llen g e In stru c tio n s 1 8 th ro u g h 2 2 a s b e in g “ lu d icr o u sly s la n te d ” a n d in a c c u ra te ly d e s c ri b in g M s . W illia m s ’s d is c ri m in a tio n c la im . Pl ai nt i ffs offe rno expl anat i on as t o w hythes e i ns truct i ons w er e s o perni ci ous ot hert han thatt heypurpor t edl yfai l ed t o i ns tructthe j ur yas t o l i abi l i tybas ed on

“ m ix e d m o tiv e c a se s.” A p p e llan ts’ O p e n in g B r. at 3 5 . B u t th e trial c o u rt d id adv i se the juryon exactl yt his score. Instruct i on 17 , i m m ediat el ypreceding t ho seIn stru c tio n 1 2 sta ted : “H a ra ss m e n t, ho stilityo r a b u se n o t d ire c ted a t a 10 p lai n ti ff h erse lf, b u t dir ec ted a t her c o -w o rke rs, o r at cu stom ers, or at o thers a ro u n d h e r, m a ya ls o c o n s titu te e v id e n c e o f a s e x u a lly h o s tile w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t. H ow ever , har as s m entof w hi ch a Pl ai nt i ff w as unaw ar e dur i ng herempl oym ent ca n n o t, as a m att er o f law , co n tr ibu te t o that P lai n ti ff ’s all eg ed h o sti le w o rk envi r onm ent . ” R . 1645. Pl ai nt i ffs chal l enge the l as ts ent ence of thi s i ns truct i on. -28- plai nti ffs i den t i fyand com plai n o f, exp res sl yst at es that “Pl ai nti ff W i l l i am s m ust s how t hathergenderw as , m or e l i kel ythan not , a mot i vat i ng fac t orbehi nd the defe ndant ’ s act i ons . I tneed notbe the onl yfac t or , ” R . 1651; onl yby di s r egar di ng I ns t ruct i on 17 can one s ugges tthatm i xed mot i ve w entunaddr es s ed. Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thatI ns t ruct i on 12 err oneous l ys t at ed thatthe har as s m entof w hi ch a pl ai nt i ff w as notaw ar e dur i ng herempl oym entcannotcontr i but e t o the hos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent . B utpl ai nt i ffs have poi nt ed t o no cont empora neous 10 obj ect i on m ade t o t hi s i ns t ruct i on, s o ourr evi ew her e i s forpl ai n err oral one – and w e fi nd none. I n C r eam erv. Lai dl aw Trans i t, Inc. , w e hel d that“the pl ai nt i ff m ayonl yr el yon evi dence r el at i ng t o har as s m entof w hi ch s he w as aw ar e dur i ng t he t i m e s he w as al l egedl ys ubj ectt o a hos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent . ” 86 F. 3d 167, 171 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) . W hi l e C r eam eri nvol ved evi dence of ac t s t hatt ook pl ace aft ert he pl ai nt i ff ha d l eftherempl oym ent , t he rat i on al e ho l ds equ al l yt rue for even t s w hich t oo k p l ace du ri ng plai nti ffs’ e m p lo ym e n t o f

w h ich th e yw e re n o t aw a re a n d su g g e sts th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id noterr . Fur t her , even i f s uch evi dence coul d have be en us ed t o s how d isc rim in a to ryin ten t o n th e p a rt o f d e fe n d a n ts fo r M s. W ill iam s’s d isp a ra tePl ai nt i ffs al s o ar gue thatI ns truct i on 15 w as notj us t i fi ed byt he evi dence 11 att r i al . T hi s i ns t ruct i on addr es s ed the affi r m at i ve defens e ava i l abl e t o compani es t hathave pol i ci es r egar di ng t he handl i ng of har as s m entcl ai m s t hatt he empl oy ee does notfol l ow orpur s ue. See ge ner al l y Faragherv. C i t

y of B oca Rat on , 524 U .S . 7 7 5 (1 9 9 8 ); B u rlin g to n In d u s., In c . v. E ller th , 5 2 4 U .S . 7 4 2 (1 9 9 8 ). Pl ai nt i ffs ’ s um m aryas s ert i on, how ever , i s s uppor t ed byno l egal author i tyor r eas on w hys uch an i ns t ruct i on w as i m pr oper . I n s uch ci r cumst ance s , w e ca nnot m e a n in g f

u lly re v ie w th e a rg u m e n t o r p ro v id e th e re lie f p la in tiff

s e e k s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. B anks , 4 5 1 F .3 d 7 2 1 , 7 2 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); P hil l i ps v. Hi l l crest Med. C tr. , 244 F. 3d 790, 800 n. 10 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( “B eca us e appe l l ant s have fai l ed t o s uppor tt hi s [ar gum ent ] w i th anyauthor i ty , l egal orotherw i s e, w e nee d n o t co n sid e r it. ” ). S im ilarly , p lain tiffs d e sc rib e In stru c tio n 2 4 a s a n “ in a c c u ra te gl os s ” on I ns t ruct i on 23 r egar di ng out r ageous conductunderN ew M exi co l aw but offe rno ar gum entorauthor i t yas t o w hyt hi s i ns truct i on i s i nacc ur at e or pr ej udi ci al , A ppel l ant s ’ O peni ng B r . at35, pr ecl udi ng us agai n fr om affor di ng t hem t he r evi ew t heys eek. -29- t r eatm entcl ai m , pl ai nt i ffs s ugges tno w ayi n w hi ch thi s i ns truct i on w as p reju d icia l to M s. W ill iam s o r re su lted in f u n d a m e n tal inju stic e su fficie n t to s a tis f yo u r p la in e rr o r s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w . P lai n ti ffs su m m aril yarg u e tha t I n stru cti o n 1 4 fa il ed to instruc t th e jury r egar di ng ( w hatt heyar gue ar e) di ffe r ents t andar ds unders t at e and feder al l aw for th e a v a ilab ili tyo f

v ica rio u s lia b ili tya g a in st e m p lo y e rs fo r th e a c tio n s o f th e ir empl oy ees . B utpl ai nt i ffs ’ ar gum enti s pr ecl uded bec aus e the veryl anguage that theyclaim w as im p erm issi b lyab sen t from Instruc ti o n 1 4 – that an “e m p loy er” c a n in c lu d e “ a n yp e rs o n a c tin g fo r a n e m p lo y e r,” A ppel l ant s ’ R epl yB r . at18 – p lai n ly ap p ea rs in Instruc ti o n 5 . R . 1 6 3 8 . O n ce ag ain, w e fin d n o erro r. 11 IVPl ai nt i ffs al s o appea l t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of the cl ai m s for 12 cons t ruct i ve di s char ge br oughtbyPl ai nt i ffs K athryn H unt er , M ar i a M ar quartand M oir a D al y , and t he sub sequen tdis m i ssal of thei r cl ai m s for l ostw ages. H ow ever , “the equi t abl e r emedyof bac kpayi s onl yavai l abl e . . . w hen the p la in tiff h a s d e m o n s tr a te d th a t s h e w a s c o n s tru c tiv e ly d is c h a rg e d .” Mal l i ns onMontague v. P ocr ni ck , 2 2 4 F . 3 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 3 7 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) . Be c a u s e t h e s a me al l egat i ons under l y i ng t hei rcl ai m s forcons truct i ve di s char ge ( e. g. , gender d iscri m ination , sex u al ha rassm en t, an d h o sti le w o rk e n v ir o n m en t) fa il ed b efo re t he juryand are notrever sed i n thi s appea l , anyerr or i n d i sm i ssi ng t he p l ai nti ffs’ con struct i ve d i scharge cl ai m s, as w el l as the clai m s for l ostw ages, w as harm l ess u n d e r o u r p re c e d e n ts . Jon es v. B arnh art , 349 F. 3d 1260, 1270 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng Sa nch ez v. D enver P ub . Sch s. , 1 6 4 F .3 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 )) . -30- Fi nal l y , pl ai nt i ffs s eek r ever s al on the bas i s of s om e 28 al l egedl yerr oneous evi dent i aryand di s coveryrul i ngs . B utonl ys om e of pl ai nt i ffs ’ curr entobj ect i ons t o t hes e rul i ngs w er e eve rpr es ent ed t o the di s tr i ctcour ti n the fi r s ti ns t ance and, of the rem ai ning few i ssues, few er s t i l l w ere adequ at el ybri efed befo re us. A s a cou rtdep end ent on t he tes t i ng of ideas i n the crucibl e of the adv ers aryprocess, w e a re re lu c tan t to iss u e ru lin g s th e c o n se q u e n c e s o f w h ich w e m a yn o t b e a b le to for es ee a nd t he s oundnes s of w hi ch w e ca nnotas s es s w i thouta meani ngful jo in d e r o f

is s u e s b yth e p a rt ie s . S e e , e.g ., Hill , 4 7 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 0 -5 1 ; Headr i ck v . R ockwel lInt ’ lC or

p. , 24 F. 3d 1272, 1278 ( 10th C i r . 1994) . A nd w e have re p e a ted lyw a rn e d th a t atte m p ts to ra ise iss u e s w ith o u t su fficie n t b rie fin g w ill re s u lt in th e irs u m m a ry d is p o s itio n . See sup ra p . 2 9 n .1 1 . W e c a n re p o rt, how ever , t hatw e have r evi ew ed ea ch of pl ai nt i ffs ’ al l egat i ons w i th car e and found none thatr i s es t o t he l evel of an a bus e of the di s cr et i on i nves t ed i n the d istric t co u rt. 12-31- t t t T h e ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law o n M s. W ill iam s’s re talia tio n c laim is rev erse d an d that claim is r em an d ed fo r tri al. T h e jud g m en t of the d istri ct co u rt i s affi rm ed in al l otherres pects and , becau se of o ur di sposi t i on of those cl ai m s, defe nd ants ’ s el f-s t y l ed “M oti on t o S tri ke N ew l y -R ai sed Is sues i n A pp el l ants ’ R e p ly B ri e f” is d e n ie d a s m o o t. So or der ed.