The H onorab le P hil ip P. Si m on of the U nit ed Stat es D is tr ic t 1 Co urt f or the N orther n D is tr ic t ofIndiana, s it ti ng b y d es ignat i on. 

## 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. 08

- 2877 D ONNAL . L EW IS, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . C ITY OF C HI CAGOP OLI CE D EP ART MEN T, C ITY OF C HI CAGO, a nd T ERR EN CE W I L L I A MS, D efend a nts-A pp ellee s.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 04 C6050

—RubenC astil lo, Judge .
A RGUED O CTOBER5, 2009

— D ECIDED D ECE MBE R 21, 2009

Befo re E VANSa nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges , a nd S I MO N , D istrict Judge. 1 S I MO N , D i s t r i ctJudg e . Chi ca g o po li ce o ffi ce r Do nna Lew i s cl aim s she was di scr i m i nated and r eta l i ate d2 N o. 08

- 2877 aga i nst b y the Ci ty ofChica go and her supervi sor, Lt. T e r r e nc e W il li am s. H er clai m w as initi all y borne out of a deci si on byW i l l i am s t o deny herr equest to parti ci pate i n a s p e c i a l s e c u r i t y d e t a i l i n Wa s h i n g t o n, D. C. The aco rn of that deci si on has produced an oak tr ee of li ti gat i o n. In i t i a l l y, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d D e fe n d a n t s s u mm ar y j udg m en t. Lew is appea l ed th atde ci si o n a nd won, i n part
. T h is C ou rtr eve rs ed and re m anded as to her gender disc ri m i nati on cl ai m ag ai nst bot h Defendants and her re tal i ati on cl ai m ag ai nst the Ci ty. Lewi s v. Ci ty of Chic ago ( “Le w is I”), 496 F.3d 645 , 656-57 (7th C ir. 2007). A t t h e s u b se q u en t t ria l , th e jur y re tu rn ed a ve rd ict in f av o r o fW i l l i ams a nd the Ci tyon b othc l ai m s. The di st r i ctc o ur t d en i ed Lewi s’ s m o ti o n f o r a ne w tr i al, a nd Lew i s a pp eal s. S he r ai ses no l es s th an fi ftee n i ssues w h ich sh e c laim s w a r r a n t a rem an d an d a n ew tria l. F i n d i n gn o n e o fth e s e i s s u e s t o h a v e me r i t, w e n o w a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND W i l l i ams b eg ans upe r vi singLewi s, a n o ffi ce r i n the tact i caluni t (“ TA CT ”) , w hen W i l l i am s be cam e the Tacti cal Lie utenant in the sum m erof 2002
. In Se ptem bero fthat yea r, the W ashi ngto n, D. C. pol i ce depar tm ent r equeste d o th erde par tmen ts to pr o vi de o ffi ce r s to a ss i stwi tha secur i ty detai l sur ro und i ng a m eet i ng o f t he Inter nati onalM onet ar y F und ( “I M F”)
. Chie fJ am es M aure r w ro te a m em o add re ssing the I M F deta i l, announci ng tha t “[ b] ecause o fhot elacc om m odati ons, a l one fem al e o ffi cer wi l l n o t b e s e n t s i n c e th e r e a r e t wo p e r s o n s t o e a c h r o o m. T h er efo re , rec om m en d a m in im u m of tw o fe m ale offic er s.”N o. 08

- 2877 3 Assi g nm en t to the de ta i l was li m i te d t o o ffi ce r s i n the TA CT , Gang o r Speci alOperat i ons ( “SOS” ) uni ts. Chie f M aure r tes ti fi ed that eve n though the m em o onl y r efer re d to fem al es, the actualpol i cy dem an d ed that i nd i vi du al offi cer s c ou l d onl y b e s ent i fan e ven num bero fthat per so n’ s g en der was g o i ng, r eg ar dl es s o f wheth er the gender w as m al e o r fem al e. L ew is felt the IM F d etail w as a g o o d career op p ort un i t y a nd tha ts he met a l l the r e qu i r e men t s . S he a pp l i e d, buthe r s upe r vi so r W i l l i ams to o k he r o ff th e l i st
. Acco r di ng to Lew i s, W i l l i am s tol d he r, “I too k your nam e off t h e list because yo u’r e fem al e” and “the t ri p w as going to be dan g er o us a nd a wor k i ngt r i p a nd tha t y o u wi l l tha nk m e f o r i t l at er . ” W i l l i ams den i es s ay i nga ny th i ngo fthe sor t. H e s ays thathe r em ove d her f ro m the l i st because no oth er fem al es f ro m herdi str i ct s i gned up. Lew i s l ost out on the tr ai ni ng exper i ence and som e o ver ti m e pay. S h o r t l y a ft e r b e i n gd e ni e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n th e I MF det ai l, Le wi s fi le d a g r i ev an ce o ve r the de ci si o n. S he sa y s th i s tr i g g er ed se ve r alacts ofr et al i at i o n inc l udi ng b eing ord ered to i nv estigate a C A PS com p lai nt by herself. CA PS com p lai nt s are i nitiated by citi zen s and are in ve st iga te d by th e p olic e d ep ar tm en t. W illiam s t old he r, “ [ I ] fy o u feel like you nee d a n a ss i st, g eta c aro ffthe wat ch

. ” Lewi s sa y s th i s was a s ar ca st i c rem ark, i m pl y i ng th a t ifshe cou ldn ’t han d le the assignm en t by he rself, she s houl d cal l o ver t h e radio f ora unif or m ed offi certo ass i st. Lew i s invest i gat ed the com p l ai nt and l ate r fi l l ed ou t a rep or t t h at sh e s ay s h e r su p er vis or s re p ea te d ly rej ecte d w i thout re aso n. The super vi sor s cl ai m it w as rej ecte d because i t was i ncom ple te.4 N o. 08

- 2877 A notheracto fr eta l i ati on, acc or ding to Lew i s, o ccurr ed on Oc tobe r 4 , 2 00 2, whenW i l l i ams ins truct ed Lew is’ s c a r t o r e s p o n d t o a “s h o t s fi r e d ” c a l l

. L e wi s a n d th e t wo o th ero ffi ce r s i n the c arwi thhe r w ere al r ea dy i n the pr o ce ss o fr es po ndi ngt o the c al l

. The y c o nduc te d the i nvest i gat i on without inci dent. I n J an ua r y 2 00 3, W il l i ams t r an sfer r ed Lewi s f r o m the T A C T to the G an g un it, reassigning h er to a new pa rtne r. This w as an ot h er act o fr eta l i ati on a ccor ding to Lew i s. L e wi s l e a r n e d th a th e r n e w p a r tn e r, Mac o n, wa s kn o wn to w ant a tr ansfero ut o fthe u n it and w as l ess ea gerto co nduc t ag g r es si ve po l i ce w o r k

. The r ea ss i g nm en t afforded w ha t L ew is felt w ere fe w e r cha nc es for overti m e a nd m or e desi rabl e a ssi gnm ents. S he was l ate r re ass i gned to an ot h er partner afterOffi cerM aco n m ove d to a di ffer ent uni t. Lew i s then r equeste d a tr ansferto the SOS unit, wh i ch woul d ha ve pl ac ed he r out si de o fW i l l i ams’ s su per vi si o n. That r equest w as denie d by Chi efM aure r, al ong w i th the r equest ofthr ee othe r offi cer s fro m Lew i s’ s di str i ct w ho r eque st ed tr an sfer s to the S OS uni t ata r o und the sam e t i m e. In f act, o nl y tw o of ten t ota l appli cants du ring tha t per i od w er e a ccepted i nto the S OS uni t. O n M ar c h 1 2 , 200 3, W illiam s re c eiv ed n ot ice th at L ew is ha d fi l ed anEEOC c ha r g e co nc erni ngthe I M F de ta i l a nd her c l a i ms o fr e t a l i a t i o n. T he n e xtda y, Le wi s wa s i n her squad car re sponding to a burgl ar y- i n-pr ogr ess cal l wh en a vo i ce L e wi s c l a i ms b e l o n g e d t o Wi l l i a ms c a me o n the ra dio and or dered hert o assi st w i th a narco ti cs t eam o per at i o n. W hi le ass i st i ngthe na r co ti cs t ea m wi tha f or c e d e nt r y, Le wi s wa s h i ti n the h e a d wi th a s l edge-N o. 08

- 2877 5 ham m erbyano thero ffi cer . S he suffer ed a fra cture d neck and i s now on a perm anent disabi l i ty l eave . The sledge

ha m m er struc k L e w is w hile in th e othe r offi cer’s back sw i ng. There i s no i nd i cation thatthe i nci dent w as anythi ng o therthan an acc i dent. Lew i s be l i eve s that bei ng o rder ed to as si st the narco ti cs t eam was another exam ple o fherbeing put i n dangerou s s i tuati ons by W i l l i am s in re tal i ati on f orherfi l i ng the EEO C charg e.

II. A N A L Y S IS Lewi s ha s f o urb r o ad ca te g o r i es o fc om p lai nt s ab o ut how h e r t rialw as con d uc ted

. She believes th at th e j ury w as given inc orrect in s tru ctions on th e law , that there wer e se ve r alevident i ar y e r r o r s, tha t th e Ci ty ’ s cl o sing ar g um en t was pr ej udi ci ala nd tha t t he r e was i ns uffi ci en t evi dence f orthe j ury to h av e fo und f orthe Defe nd ants. W e ta k e ea chup i n tur n.

A. J uryI ns t ruc t i o ns L ew is m akes a tota l of sev en cha ll en ges to th e j ury i ns truct i o ns . W e st ar t wi tha g en er aldi sc us si o n of the l aw go ver n in g chal l enges to j ury i nstr ucti ons and then m ove to Lew i s’ s s peci fi c i ssues . W e rev iew chal l enges to j ury i nstr ucti ons deno vo a nd a ff o r d the di st r i ctc o urt “substan tial disc re ti on with re spect to the pr eci se w or ding ofi nstructi ons so l ong as the fi nal r esul t, r ead as a whole , co m ple tel y a nd co rr ectly s tat es the l aw . ” U nited St at e s v. Gi b s on , 530 F.3d 6 0 6 , 6 0 9 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ). W h en it com es to potenti al l y confusi ng orm i sl eadi ng i nstr ucti ons,6 N o. 08

- 2877 the r evie w i ng co urt i s t o fi rs t a sk i f“the co rr ect m ess age w as convey ed to the j ury re aso nabl y wel l

. ” D a w son v. N ew YorkLi f eIns . Co. , 135 F.3d 11 58 , 116 5 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ). Th is i nquir y i s done by ex am ini ng the i nstr ucti ons as a w hol e, i n a com m on s ense m anner, avo i ding ni tpi cki ng. Id . I f t h e in st ru c tio n s fa il in th is re ga rd , a n ew tria l is a p p r o p r i a t e o n l y i fth e i n s t r u c t i o n p r ej u d i c e d th e c o mp lain in g p ar ty
. Id

. W he n a p arty fail s to obj ect to an i ns tru ction, th e cou rt wi l l r ev er se o nl y i fthe r e was a “ pl ai n er r o r a ffec ting su b sta nti alr i ghts. ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 51 ( d)( 2) ( 2008 )
. Plain er ro r re vi ew o fj ury i nstr ucti ons i s “ parti cul ar l y l i ghthand ed. ” U nite d State s v. D iSantis , 56 5 F.3d 354, 36 1 ( 7th Cir
. 2009 ) ( quoti ng U nite d State s v. G ri ff in , 84 F. 3d 912, 92 5 (7th C ir. 1996)).

1. Ble ndi ng of

D i s cr i m i nat i on and Ret al i at i on Ins t r uc t i ons The fi nal se t o f in st ructi ons re ad to the j ury i ncl ud ed separ ate i nstru cti ons f orthe disc ri m i nati on a nd r eta l i ati o n c l ai m s. Le wi s m aint ains tha t ce r ta i n a spe ct s o fthe instru ctions cou ld h a ve con fused the j urors into inc orre ctl y thi nki ng tha t Lewis had to prove di scr i m i nati on and r e t a l i a t i o n t o p r e v a i l o n h e r r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. T h e d isc rim in at ion ins tr u c tio n ca m e first, an d it outl i ned the v ar i ous e l em ents ofLew is’s di scr i m i nati on claim

. Th e nex t tw o pa ges of ins tru ctions cont ained short par ag r aph s i nt r o ducingg en er alr et al i at i o n l aw. F o l l o wi ng that cam e fi ve parag ra phs m aking up the r eta l i ati on i nstr ucti on. The fi rs t tw o parag ra phs ofthe re tali ati on i nstr ucti on r ead as f ol l ows:N o. 08

- 2877 7 Plaintiffclai m s tha t she w as s ingled out for m ore dangero us as si gnm ents, singl ed out f oradver se tr eat
m ent about her j ob perf or m ance, m ove d fr om her p ar tn er an d he r te am, an d/ o r r efus ed to tr an sfer her, an d/ o r di r ec te d he r to m o r e da ng er o us cal l s byDe fen dant City of Ch i cago , thro ugh i ts age nts b ec au se sh e co m pl aine d abo utg en derdi sc r i m i na ti o n. Pl ai nti ffm u st al so pr o ve b y a pr epo nde r an ce o fthe evidence that Defe nd ant Ci ty ofChica go singl ed her o utfo r mor e dan g er o us a ss i g nm en ts, s i ng l ed he r o ut f oradver se tr eatm en t about her j ob perf or m ance, m ove d her f ro m herpartner and her tea m , and/o r refused to transfer her , and /or directed her to m ore dangero us cal l s be cau se she c om pla i ned ofge nd er disc ri m i nati on. To det er m i ne thatP lain ti ffLew i s was si ngl ed out f orm or e danger ous a ssi gnm ents, singl ed out f oradver se tr eat m ent about her j ob perf or m ance, m ove d fr om herpartner and her tea m , and/o r refused to transf er her, and /or directed her to m ore dangero us cal l s be cause sh e com pla i ned ofge nd er disc ri m i nati on, yo u m u st deci de that Defe nd ant Ci ty of Ch ica go w ou ld n ot hav e singled her ou t for m ore dangero us as si gnm ents, singl ed hero u t foradver se tr eat m ent about her j ob perf or m ance, m ove d her f ro m her partner a n d h erte am , and/o r re fused to tr ansfer he r, a nd/ o r di r ec te d he r t o m o r e dan g er o us c al l s i fs he ha d no t com pl aine d o fg en derdi sc r i m i na ti o n b ut everyth ing ha d been the sam e. (em p ha sis add ed ). Lew is take s i ssue w i th the i ncl usi on o fthe w or d “al so” i n the seco nd p ar agr aph ofthe re tal i ati on instr ucti on. H er ar gum ent i s that s i n c e th er e was nothi ng i n the fi rs t8 N o. 08

- 2877 parag ra ph ofthe re tal i ati on instr ucti on descr ibi ng wh at els e L ew is h ad to “p ro ve ,” t h e n t h e re ad er w ou ld natura l l y k ee p looking ba ckwards i n the i nstr ucti ons to giv e m ea n in g t o th e w or d “a lso ,” an d u ltim at ely st u m b le u p o n th e e l e me n t s o fth e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n . As a r esul t, Lew is reaso ns, the j ury coul d have underst oo d the r eta l i ati on instr ucti on t o m ean t h at she had to p r o v e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n t o p r e v a i lo n h e r r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. I t’ s f ai r l y c l ea r tha t th e s tray “a l so ” was i nc l ude d i n the i n s t r u c t i o n s b y e r r o r . He r e ’ s wh a t h a p p e n e d : Afte r t he cl ose o fev i dence, the dist ri ct j ud ge sent the j ury hom e for th e daya nd c o nduc te d a j ur y i ns truct i o n c o nfer ence . The f ol l owing m or ni n g, th e Ci ty’ s co unselpro posed an a men de d r e t a l i a t i o n i ns t r uc t i o n whi c h wa s “ t e nd e r e d” to th e c ou rt
. See Tr
. a t9 3 6
. T he Ci t y ’ s p r o po s a l ad de d a new para gr aph to the r et ali ati on instr ucti on. A fter re ad i ng the pro posed i nstr ucti on, the j ud ge agr eed with i ncl ud i ng the addit i onalpara gr aph but sai d he w anted to sw i tch the o rder i ng o ftwo ofthe parag ra phs. The “a l so” m ade se nse a s the par agr aphs w er e ori gi nal l y wri tte n b utl o s tme a ningwh e n the y we r e fl i p- fl o pp e d. I nc lud ing the stray “also” d id n o t l ead to the j ury bei ng m i si nfo rm ed. T h e j ury ver y e asi l y c oul d have und er sto od the disti ncti on be tw een the di scr i m i nati on instru ction an d retali ation instru ction. Fi rst, it heard cl osing ar gum ents fro m co unselthattr eat ed the cl ai m s a s be i ngc o m pl etel y di st i nc t, o ne no t depe nde nto n the othe r. S eco nd , the re tal i ati on instr ucti on an d discr i m i nati on instr uct ion s w er e s epara ted bytwo pages o fo ther i nstr ucti ons. The “a l so” m ay have q u i te pla usibl y b eenN o. 08

- 2877 9 tak en to r eferto tho se inter veni ng page s o r the fi rs t parag ra ph ofthe re tal i ati on instr ucti on i tse lf, wh i ch i denti fi ed Lew i s’ s r eta l i ati on cl ai m s. W e ca nnot s ay that th e i nc l us i o n o fthe wor d “ al so ” m ade the i ns truct i o ns so con fusing an d m isl ead ing tha t it resu lted in t h e j ury bei ng co nveye d an i ncor re ct m ess age . D awso n , 13 5 F
. 3d at 1165
. M or e i m port antl y, Lew i s f ai l ed to o bj ec t to the i nstr ucti on. Rule 51 ( b) ( 2) r equi re s aco urt to gi ve the par ti es an o p p ortuni tyt o o bj ec t to a n ins truct i o n o n the r ec o r d a nd o uto fthe j ur y ’ s he ar i ngb efo r e th e i nstr uct i o ns a nd ar gu m en ts are d eliv er ed . F ED . R. C IV . P. 51(b)(2) (2008). UnderRul e 51 , a c o ur t m ayr emedy a n e r r o r i n the i nst ru c tio n s t h at w as n otp re se rv ed if th e e rro r is p la in an d affe c ts su b st an t i a l r igh ts . F ED . R. C IV . P. 51(d )( 2); G riffin v . Foley, 5 42 F
. 3d 20 9, 2 22 ( 7th Ci r . 2 008 )
. In the con te xt o fchal l enged j ury i nstr ucti ons, a party ’ s s ubst an ti alr i g ht s ar e affecte d s o a s to war r an t r ev er sa l i fthe er ro r i s “ of s u c h gre at m ag n itu d e t h at it p ro b ab ly changed the outco m e o fthe tr i al

. ” U nited S t a tes v. No el , 581 F. 3d 490, 49 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( quoti ng U ni t ed Stat e s v. P eters , 435 F.3d 746 , 754 (7th C ir. 2006)). Lew i s c laim s she “ did notse e thi s r evi sed i nstr ucti on b efo re it w as rea d to th e jur y.” A p p ella n t’s B r. at23 . Th is i m pli es that i t wa s som ehow cl andesti nel y pass ed to the j ud ge w i thout Lew i s o r her att or neys havi ng a chance t o see i t. But the disc ussio n o fthe changes to th e i ns truct i o n wer e m ade i n o penc o ur t. The Ci ty’s p ro posed change s t o the instr ucti on were tendere d to the j ud ge, and there is no i nd i cati on that Lewis’ s co unsel10 N o. 08

- 2877

as ked to see a copy or express ed any i nter es t in re vie w in g t h e fin al la n gu ag e. T h e jud ge an n ou n c e d h is re vi si ons prior t o re adingthe i nstr ucti ons to the j ury. W e hav e no r eas on t o thi nk Lew i s would have bee n den i ed th e ab i l i tyt o r ea d the i ns truct i o n h ad sh e ex pr es se d a ny de si r e to do s o . Ev enwi th o uts ee i ngthe act u al pie ce o fpaper, Lew i s was o ra l l y m ade aware of al l change s that w er e bei ng m ade and coul d have pr o mpt l y r e s po nd e d. Con se que nt l y, a l th o ug h the oppo r tu ni tyto obj ec t i n the ti m e pr o vi d ed b y Rul e 51 was s ho r t i n thi s ca se , the op p ortu nity w as no ne th eless the re. In f act, the very next por ti on o fthe tr anscr i pt shows both part i es o bv i o us l y a war e o fthe i r need to pr es er ve o bj ec ti o ns a nd th e o p p or tu n ity to d o s o, as th ey qu ick ly r e n e w ed p re viousl y unre l ate d obj ecti ons to the instr ucti ons. I n sum , the er ro r cre ate d by the stra y “al so” (i fit m ay be ca l l ed th at ) was no t si g ni fi ca nte no ug h t o a ffec t Lewi s’ s su b st an tia l righ ts o r to lik ely c h an ge t h e tr ial’s ou tc om e. It str etche s the i m aginati on t o sugge st th at the m i sta ken i ncl usi on o fo ne word i n thi s set ofj ury i nstr ucti ons that s p a n t we l v e p a g e s ma d e a ny di ffe r e n c e i n th e o u t c o me of t h e t ria l. Lew i s r ai se s a fe w addit i onalpoi nts, wh i ch she ar gues adde d t o the c o nfus i o n c r ea te d b y the p re se nc e o fthe str ay “al so. ” F i rst, she c l ai m s Instr ucti on N o. 5 conta i ned a co nfusing use ofthe w or d “ and” w hi ch, acc or ding to Lew i s, ag ai n i m perm i ssibl y l i nked the disc ri m i nati on a nd r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i ms. T he i ns t r uc t i o n s a i d:N o. 08

- 2877 11 I n deci ding Pl ai nti ffL ew is’s cl ai m s, yo u shoul d not co nc ern yo ur se l ve s wi thw he th erDefen dan ts ’ a ct i o ns w ere w ise, reason able, or f air. R a t h e r, your con cern i s o nl y whethe r Pl aint i ffLe wi s ha s pr o ve d tha t Defen d a n tC i t y o fChi c a g o a n d / o r D e fe n d a n tWi l l i a ms d e n i e d he r th e o p p o r t u n i ty t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n th e I MF D et ail in W as h in gt on , D .C
. b ec au se of h er ge n d er , a nd whethe r De fen dan t Ci tyo fChicag o t o o ka ny o fthe action s i denti fi ed i n the previ ous instr ucti on in re ta l i at i o n f o r he r c o m pl aint of ge nde r di sc r i m i na ti o n. (em p ha sis add ed ). T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n i s a p r o p e r s t a t e me n to fl a w a n d f o l l o ws the S eve nth Cir cui t Pat tern I nstr ucti on 3
. 07. I t deal s with an enti re l y s epara te subj ect m att erfro m wh at i s r equi re d to p ro ve d isc rim in at ion an d ret alia tio n . In st ru c tio n N o. 5 s i mply wa r n e d th e j u r o r s n o tt o s u b s t i t u t e th e i r o wn j ud g me n tf o r th a to fth e C i t y r e g a r d i n gma t t e r s o u t s i de of t h e c on c er n s a n im at ed by T itle V II. Se cond, L ew i s t ake s i ssue w i th the j ud ge’ s r eadi ng o f on e o f th e v er d ict fo r m s t o th e jur y. V er d ict For m 4 or iginal l y said t hat i fthe j ury f ound that Lewis did notpro ve “r et al i at i o n” i t m us t fi nd f o r W i l l i ams o n the “ r et al i at i o n” c laim . Th e v er d ict form sh ou ld h av e s aid “d isc rim in at ion .” Bu t thi s e rr orw as r ep ai re d i m m edi ate l y a fterthe j ud ge re ad the instr ucti ons, and w as cor re c ted o n the ver dict form tha t wentb ac kwi ththe j ur y . Ul ti m at ely, the n, the co r r ec te d ve r di ct f o r m s o nl y he l ped to al l ev iate a ny probl em s ca used by the s tr ay “al so” i n the re ta liati on i nstr ucti on, r atherthan com pound i t.12 N o. 08

- 2877 2. The Jury Ins t r uc t i on D e f i ni ng “M at e r i al l y Adve rs e ” Lew i s a l so cl ai m s that the di str i ct c ourter re d bysubm i tting to the j u ry t h e quest i on o fwh etherthe acti ons of th e Ci tya m o unt ed to a mate r i al l y a dve r se e m ploy m en t acti onu nd e r the di s c r i mi na t i o n c l a i m. S he c l a i ms tha t su bm itti ng the issu e to the j ur y i g nores this C ou rt’s ho l di ngi n Lew is I
. Here’s th e r el ev an t par ag r apho fthe disc ri m i nati on instr ucti on a s i t was r ead to the j ury: To succe ed on th is cl ai m , Pl ai nti ffLew i s m ust fi rs t pr o ve b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o fth e e v i d e n c e th a tt he d e n i a l o fth e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n th e I MF Detai l i n W ashi ngto n, D. C. w as a m at eri al l y a dvers e em plo ym ent a cti on. N ot eve ry thi ng tha t m ak es an em plo yee unhapp y i s a m at er i al l y a dvers e e m plo ym ent a cti on. I t m ust be so m ethi ng m or e than a m i nor or tr ivia l in c on ve n ien c e. Fo r ex am p le, a m a te ria lly ad verse em p loym en t action ex ists w he n s o m eon e’s pay o r benefi ts ar e d ecr eas ed; w hen herj ob i s chang ed i n a way that s i gn ificantlyr educes hercar eerpro spe c ts; o r w hen j ob condi ti ons ar e chang ed i n a way th at sign ifica n tly ch an ge s h er w o r k en vir on m en t in an unfa vor abl e way. The deni alo fan o pp or tuni ty to ea r n o ve r ti m e i s a m at er i al l y a dverse emplo y m en t ac ti o n i fthe o ve r ti m e i s a signifi ca nta nd r ec ur r i ng part ofan e m plo yee ’ s t ota l ea rni ngs. On the o th er h an d , i ft h e op p or tu n ity to ea rn ov er tim e is ins ign ific an t a n d n on re c u rrin g, it w ill no t b e a m at er ially adv er se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n. L ew is conte n d s tha t the actions tak en against h er w ere m ateriall y ad verse as a m atter of l aw , and so the cou rtN o. 08

- 2877 13 shoul d not hav e pos ed the que stio n to the j ury. W hether t h e d e n ial of L ew is’s p lac em en t o n th e IM F d et ail c on st itu te d a m at er ially ad ve rs e a c tio n w as u n d en iab ly in di spu te
. Thi s Cou r t i n Lew is Isai d i t w as a genuine iss ue o f m at er ial fa c t. Lewis , 496 F. 3d at 654. A t tr i al, th e C i ty prese nted ev i dence thatLew i s di d not know how m uch ove rt i m e s he would have ea rned, thatt h er e w er e s eve ra l o th ere qua l l y b en efi ci alde tails av ai l ab l e to he r, tha t th e I M F de ta i l was ung l amour o us whi l e be tt ertra i ni ng ex er ci se o ppo r tu ni ti es e xi st ed i n Chi cago, and tha t sh e w as not denie d any subs equent as si gnm ents orpro m otions as resu lt ofnot bein g able to part ic ip ate. Lew is’ s r el i an ce o n He nry v . M i l wauke eCounty, 53 9 F
. 3d 573, 58 5- 86 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ), i s m isp lac ed be c au se , in co n tr as t t o th is c a s e , th e o v e r t i me o p p o r t u n i t y i n He nry was a s i g ni fi ca nt an d e xpe ct ed co m po ne nto fthe pl aint i ff s’ c o m pen sa ti o n. I t i s t rue that som e ca ses pre sent obvi ou s exam ple s o f m ate ri al l y a dvers e acti ons bei ng tak en ag ai nst e m plo yee s. Forexam ple , co urts sho uld not g en er al l y t askj uri es w i th d eterm ining w he th er term inations , de m otion s or salary cuts a re m ate ri al l y a dvers e a cti ons. But ther e a re ti m es w here the questi on i s no t s o obvi ous, a n d thi s ca se prese nts on e oftho se i nstance s. SeeS EV EN T H C IRCU IT P A T T E R N J U RY I NS T RUCT I ON § 3. 01 , Co m m en t E ( no ting th at ifa f act issu e arises as to w he th er the p laint iff su ffered a m ateriall y ad verse em p loym en t action, “a cou rt sh ou ld m od ify th e instru ctions to p rovide t h e j ury wi thg ui dan ce a s to whatthi s te r m mean s. ”)
. Be ca us e th e d eg re e o f ad ve rs i t y s u ffer ed by L ew is w as su b st an tia lly i n doubt, the j ury w as appropri ate l y pr ese nted w i th the i ssue.14 N o. 08

- 2877 3. Incl usi on of “M ater ially A dvers e” Requi re m entin R et aliat i on Ins t r uc t i on Lew i s next tak es i ssue w ith how the j ud ge i nstr ucted th e jur y on w h at th e t er m “m at e r ially ad ve rs e” m ea n s in th e co nt ex t o fthe r et al i at i o n c l ai m . Le wi s argu es thatthe i n s t r u c ti o n di d n o tc o r r e c t l y f o l l o w B urlin gto n N o rthern and Santa Fe R y. C o. v. White, 5 48 U .S. 5 3, 67(20 06 ). Sp ec ifical l y, she tak es i ssue w i th the follow in g p ar t o fthe re ta l i at i o n ins truct i o n: To succe ed on thi s c laim , Pl ai nti ffm ust pro ve by a preponderance o fthe evi dence that t he chal l enged ac tio n s a re on e s th at a re as on ab le e m p loy ee w ou ld fi nd to be m ate ri al l y a dvers e su ch thatthe em plo yee w oul d be di ssuaded fro m engaging i n the prot ecte d acti vi ty. I t’ s d i ffi c u l t t o ma k e s e n s e o f L e wi s ’ s a r g u me n t
. The i n s t r u c t i o n i s e n t i r e l y c o n s i s t e n tw i th th e S u p r e me Cou rt’ s o pi ni o n in White

. A s we note d i n Lew i s’ s pri or a pp e a l, th e ma i n t a k e - a wa y fr o m Whit e i s tha t“ the r a ng e o fc o n d u c tp r o h ib i t e d u n d e r [ T i t l e V I I ’ s a n t i

- r e t a l i a t i o n] provi si on i s br oaderthan Tit l e VII ’s [ anti

- ] disc ri m i nati on prohibi ti on. ” Lewis , 49 6 F.3d a t 6 54- 55 ( quoti ng Phel an v. C ookCo unty, 4 63 F
. 3d 77 3, 7 87( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) )
. The S up rem e C ou rt n oted that f or retali ation claim s, “a p lai nt iff m us t sh o w tha t a r ea so nabl e empl o y ee woul d ha ve f o und th e c h alle n g e d ac tio n m at er ially ad ve rs e, w h ich in t h is c on te x t m ea n s itw ell m igh t h a v e d iss u ad ed a re as on ab le wo r k e r fr o m m a k i n go r s u p p o r t i n ga c h a r g e o fd i s c r i mi nati on. ” Whi te, 5 48 U. S
. a t 68 ( i nt erna l c i ta ti o ns a nd quotati on m ar ks om i tte d). In light o fthi s, i t’ s har d to seeN o. 08

- 2877 15 how Lew i s w oul d c oncl ud e th at Whitedoe s not req uire proo fo fan “ advers e a cti on” i n a r eta l i ati on ca se. Lew i s a l so ar gues that because Lew is If o und tha t sh e ha d pr o v i de d “ s uffi c i e nt e v i de nc e ” o f r e t a l i a t i on t o show a m ate ri al l y a dvers e a cti on ( und erthe Whit e d efin iti o n) , the j ury di dn’ t ha ve t o b e as k ed whethe r the acti ons w er e m ate ri al l y a dvers e. 49 6 F
. 3d at 655. B ut, o nce ag ain , Lew is Iwa s r e v i e win gth e e v i d e n c e u n d e r a s u mm ar y j ud gm ent s tand ar d t o deter m i ne i fther e was a gen uin e i s s u e of m aterial fact. A fter dec iding th at th ere was such an i s s ue , i twa s the n up t o the j ur y t o de c i de th e qu estion. A ft e r a ll, Le w is did n ot w in on su m m ary j u d gm en t, sh e m er ely d efe at ed th e C ity ’ s m ot ion . Th is C ou rt’s fin d in g of “su ffici en t evide nc e” in a sum m ary j ud g men t c o nt e xt di d no t e nd the f a c t ua l i nqui r y . I t was perfectly v al id f orthe dist ri ct c ourtto r equi re the j ury to det er m i ne i fLe wi s pr o ve d a “m at er i al l y a dve r se ” ac ti o n, an d to ex pl ain th at te r m i n a m anne r th at was cons i st en t wi th White

.
4. Ins t r uc t i on on Int e nt i onal D i s cr i m i nat i on Lew i s next ar gues that the di scr im i nati on instr ucti on was i m p ro perb ec au se i t r equi r ed Lewi s to pr o ve tha t th e Defen dan ts “ i nt en ti o na l l y di sc r i m i na te d ag ains t he r . ” S he c ites to H uf

f v. Sh e ahan , 4 93 F
. 3d 89 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) a nd B o hen v. Ci ty of

Eas tChi cago , 799 F.2d 118 0 (7th C ir. 1986), but thos e ca ses address hos ti l e workenvi ro nm ent c l ai m s. Lew i s’ s ho sti l e workenvi ro nm ent c lai m was dis m i sse d at su m m ar y jud gm en t a n d n otp u rs u ed attria l.16 N o. 08

- 2877 A pl ai nti ffbr i ngi ng a d i spara te tr eat m ent c l ai m m ust p r o v e inten tional discrim ination. Th e Sup rem e C ou rt ha s st at ed th ati t i s th e pl aint i ff’ s bur dent o pe r su ade “ th e tr i ero ff act that defe nd ant i ntenti onal l y di scr i m i nated ag a in st th e p lain tiff.” St
. M ary’s HonorCe nt e rv. H i cks , 50 9 U. S
. 5 0 2 , 5 0 7( 1 9 9 3 ) ( qu o ti ng Texas D ept. of Com m unity Aff ai rs v. Bur di ne, 4 5 0 U .S. 24 8, 25 3 (1 98 1)); Gonzal ez v. Inge rs ol l M i l l i ng M ac hi neCo. , 1 3 3 F.3d 1025, 1031 (7th C ir. 1998 ) ( “Pro ofo fi ntentio nal di scr i m i nati on i s r equi re d u n d er a d i s p ar at e t re at m en t a n aly sis .”); see also Wai t ev. Bd. of Trs . of Il l
. Cm ty. Col l
. D i s t
. No. 50 8 , 408 F .3d 3 39, 34 3 ( 7th Ci r . 20 05 )
. Le wi s he r se l fa dm i tt ed th i s i n h erb r i efi ng w hen she w ro te that “[ t] hi s e vi dence i s a l so necess ar y t o prove di scr i m i natory a nd r eta l i ato ry i ntent , w hi ch i s an essen ti alel em ent u n d er T itle V II .” See A pp el l ant’ s B r. at 46 ( em phasi s a dd ed). The i nstr ucti on r equi ring Lew is to p ro ve int en tio n al d isc rim in at ion w as th er efo re en tir ely appropri ate
.
5. M ixe d-M ot i veIns t r uc t i on Congre ss am ended Ti tl e VI I i n 1991 to al l ow fo r l i abi l i ty i fa pla i nti ffpro ves that her gender ( oro therpro tect ed class) w as a “m otivating factor” fo r a de fend an t’s adv er se a ct i o n. 4 2 U. S
. C. § 2 00 0e -5(g) ( 2) ( B) ( 20 09 )
. The c o ur t s h a v e de v e l o pe d ins t r uc t i o ns r e fl e c t i ngthe ame nd

m ent, advi si ng j uri es th at if a pl ai nti ffpro ves that g e n d e r wa s a mo t i v a t i n gf a c t o r, b u tth e d e fe n d a n ts h o ws it w o u l d h av e t ak en th e a d ve rs e a c tio nan yw ay , th en it mu s tfi nd th e d e fe n d a n tl i ab l e b u tc a n n o ta wa r d d a mag es . See S EV EN T H C IR CUIT P AT T ERN J URY I NST RU CT I ONN o. 08

- 2877 17

The c onc ur ri ng o pi ni on i n Boyd v. Il l i noi s Sta t e Pol i ce, 384 F
. 3d 2 88 8, 90 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04 ) ( Pos ne r, J
. , c onc ur ri ng) , s ugge s t s thatif a de fen dantd ec i des to puton the m i xe d- m ot i ve defen s e, the n a m ixed -m otiv e instru ction is ap p ro p riate. T he op inio n g oe s o n to p osit tha t if the d efend an t arg u es the on ly re aso n for th e ad v erse ac t i on was f or a non - di s c ri m i nat or y r ea s on, the n h e i s “goi ng for br ok e ” by a i m i ng f ora c ompl e t e de fe ns e , a nd s o no m i x e dm ot i ve i ns t r uc t i ons ho ul d b e us e d. Id

. § 3
. 01, Com m ent B and C. Ci rcui ts ar e s pli t as to wh ether to apply a m i xed m ot i ve i nstr ucti on in al l Ti tl e VI Icas es, se e id

. ( c i t i ng E I GHT H C IR CUIT M OD EL C IVI L J URY I NS T RUC T I ONS§ 5.0 1; N I NT H C IR CUIT M OD EL C IVI L J URY I NS T RUC T I ONS§ 12 .1 & C om m en t; E LE VE NT H C IR CUIT P ATTE RN J URYI NS T RUCT I ONS( C IVI L C ASE S ) § 1 .2.1)), or on ly in thos e ca ses deter m i ned to ra i se a qu es tio n ofm i xed m ot ive s, se e id

. ( ci ti ng Wat s on v. Se
. Pe nn. Tr ans p. Aut h. , 20 7 F .3 d 20 7, 21 4-2 0 (3 d C ir. 20 00 ); F i e l ds v . Ne w Yo rk S t ate O ffi c e of M enta l R etard a tio n & D evelo pm enta l D isa bilities , 115 F. 3d 116, 12 1- 24 ( 2d Cir

. 19 97) )
. Thi s Cou rt h as yet to de ci de when i t i s appr o pr i at e to a ppl y a mot iv at i ng f ac to r i ns truct i o n. 2 Forsi tuati ons i n w hi ch a jud ge has deci ded to gi ve th e j ur y a mi xe d- mot i v e s i ns t r uc t i o n, the Co mm i t t e e o n P a t t e r n C i v i l J u r y In s t r u c t i o n s ma k e s th e f o l l o win gr e c o mm en dat i o n: P lain tiff m u st p ro ve by a p re p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e viden c e th at hi s [ pro tected class ] was a m oti vating f acto r i n D efend ant’ s deci si on t o [ adve rs ee m pl oym e ntac t i on ] hi m . A m oti vating f acto r i s som ethi ng tha t co ntributed18 N o. 08

- 2877 to D efend an t’s dec isi on. I f you find tha t Plaintiff has pro ved thathi s [ pro tected class ] co ntributed to Defe nd ant’ s deci si on t o [ adve rs ee m pl oym e ntac t i on ] hi m , y o u mustthe n de ci de w he th erDe fen dan t p ro ve d by a p re p on d er an c e o f th e e vid e n c e t h at it w oul d have [ adve rs ee m pl oym e ntac t i on ] hi m eve n if Pl a i nt i ffwa s n o t [ pro tected class ]
. I fso , yo u m ust e nter a v er d ict for t h e P lain tiff b u t y ou m ay n o t a w ar d h im dam age s. SeeS EV EN T H C IR CUIT P AT T ERN J URY I NS T RUC T I ON § 3
. 0 1 , Co mm e ntC. This case does notpre sent us w ith the appropr i ate c on te x t t o c h oo se sid es i n t h e c irc u it s p lit b ec au se L ew is did notpre ser ve th e i ssue f orappeal

. S he m er el y hi nted ati t, b y pr o po singa thr ee - par ag ra ph ins truct i o n. The m i dd l e par agr aph, the on ly on e a d d re ss in g m ix ed -m ot ives, s t a t e d: Pl ai nti ffi s no t r equi re d to prove that h er gender was th e sole m otivation for th e d ecision. R ath er, Plaintiff’s gender w as a m oti vating f acto r i fPl ai nti ff’ s g ender m ade a di ffer en ce i n the de ci si o n. The pr o bl em wi ththi s pr o po sa l i s th ati t l ea ve s o utthe ver y s i gni fi cant seco nd sentence sugge ste d by Com m ent C of the Pa t tern Ins tru ctions , the on e tha t tell s the j ury w ha t to do if it find s gen d e r t o b e a m otivating factor. N amel y, th e j ur y woul d ha ve t o de ci de whethe r the D e fe n d a n t s p r o v e d t ha tth e y w o u l d h a v e t a k e n th e s a me acti on e ven i fLew i s was a m an , a nd i fso , ente r a ve rdi ct for Lew i s but not aw ar d dam age s. Even i f a party is “ent i t l e d t o a n i ns t r uc t i o n, ” i t i s “ r e qu i r e d t o t e nd e r an in st ru c tio n t h a t c or re c tly st at ed th e la w in o rd er to ch al-N o. 08

- 2877 19 l enge the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r efusalto use i t. ” M ars hal l v. P orte r C ounty P lan Co m ’n , 32 F. 3d 1215 , 1220 ( 7th Cir
. 19 94) ( ci ti ng No rthbro o kE xc ess an d S urp l u s I ns. C o . v. P roc ter & Gam b l eCo. , 924 F.2d 63 3, 63 8 (7th C ir. 19 91 )). Th e T itle V II a me n d me n tc o d i fi e d a s S e c t i o n 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( g ) ( 2 ) ( B ) “ s e e ms to m andate tw o questi ons, ” s e eA krab awi v. Car ne s Co. , 15 2 F. 3d 688, 69 4 ( 7th Ci r. 1998) and L ew i s’ s pro posed i nstr uction w as m issi ng half. W e al so a g r ee wi ththe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s as se ss m en t that Lew i s abandoned h er r equest f ora m i xed-m oti ve in st ru c tio n . Le wis v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 563 F. Supp.2d 905, 91 2 ( N
. D. I l l

. 2 00 8)
. The t r an sc r i pt sh o ws tha t dur in gthe j ury inst ruc tion con fe renc e, th e j ud ge asked Le w is’ s co uns elabo uthe r pr o po se d i ns truct i o n c o nt aini ngthe m ot iva tin g fa c to r lan gu ag e. See Tr. at90 9. The j ud ge then ask ed abo ut the City ’ s o w n p ro posed i nstr ucti on, wh i ch u s e d th e “ ma t e r i a l l y a d v e r s e ” l a n g u a g e fr o m th e c o mm en ts o fPa tt ern Ins truct i o n § 3. 01 , but no t an y mot i va ting fac to r lan gu ag e. Id . L ew i s’ s co unseli m m edi ate l y r esponded that “w e w oul d b e fi ne” w i th “changing ou rs, tak i ng o ut the m i dd l e s ecti on. ” Id . at 9 10 . T h is p re su m ab ly re fer re d to the m i dd l e parag ra ph o f her propos ed i nstr ucti on

— the o ne di scussing g ender as a m oti vating f acto r . Co uns elf o r Le wi s th enr ec i te d a n en tirel y ne w i nst ru c ti o n o n t h e re c or d w h ich d id n oth av e a n y “ m ot iva tin g fa c to r” lan gu ag e. W h ile c o u n se l ev en tu ally d id ob j ec t t o th e in st ru c t i o n t h at th e c ou rtse tt led on, sh e d id so o n l y w ith res p ec t t o th e in c lu sio n of th e “ m at er ially ad ve rs e” lan gu ag e d isc u ss ed ab ov e. Id

. a t 9 1 1

- 1 2. S he d id n otlod ge an y ob j ec tio n to th e e x c l u s i o n of th e “ m ot iva tin g fa c to r” p ar ag ra p h

. Id

.20 N o. 08

- 2877 Insu m , L ew is d id n otp r e se rv e h er ob j ec tio n . M er ely tendering a propos ed i nstr ucti on i s no t s uffi c ien t t o p re se rv e a n ob j ec tio n . Cons um e rPr oduc t s Re s e ar ch & D esign , Inc. v. Jensen , 572 F.3d 436 , 439 (7th C ir. 2009). Lew i s’ s pro posed i nstr ucti on a ske d i f“g ender m ade a differ en ce in the deci si on. ” I t i s uncl earhow thi s instr ucti o n woul d ha ve l ed to a di ffer en t r es ul t th anthe one re ached thr ough the i nstr uction that w as gi ven, wh i ch a s k e d i f th e D e fe n d a n t s wo u l d h a v e t a k e n t he s a me acti ons had Lewis “bee n m al e but eve ry thi ng else had been the s am e. ” They ar e both ess enti al l y “ but f or ” instr uction s. Theref or e, Lew i s “ cannot ar ti cul ate how [s he] was affect ed by the r efused j ury i nstr ucti on. ” Id

. at43 9- 40. Underthe “ li gh t- ha nde d” r ev i ew o fj ur y i ns truct i o ns, se e D iSantis , 5 65 F
. 3d at3 61 , we ca nno t sa y tha t th e ex cl usi on o fLew i s’ s pro posed i nstr ucti on a ffec ted her substa nt ial rights. N orcan w e s ay, i n l ar ge part because i t w as not ar gued, that the j ury probabl y w ou ld have f o und di ffer en tly had i t be eng i ve n the ful l “ m o ti va ting factor” instru ction discu ssed in C om m en t C of P a t t e rn I nstr ucti on § 3. 01.

6. Pre t extIns t r uc t i on Lew i s next ar gues she was ent i tl ed t o an i nstr ucti on advi si ng the j ury that i t coul d fi nd the City ’ s e x p lan ati o ns f or th e a ct i o ns i t to o kt o b e a pr et ex t. Ofc o ur se , the subj ect of prete xt com es fro m the M cDonne l l

- D ougl as f ra m ew or k. But th e bur den-shi fti ng appara tus pro vi ded by M cDo nn e l l

- D ougl as i s a pp l i cabl e o nl y t o pretr i alpro c ee d in gs . Geh r i ng v. Cas eCorp. , 4 3 F
. 3 d 3 4 0 , 3 43 ( 7thN o. 08

- 2877 21 Cir
. 19 94)
. “Once the j ud ge fi nd s th at the pl ai nti ffhas m a d e th e m i n i m u m n e c e s s a r y d e m o n s t r a t i o n ( th e ‘ p r i ma facie case’) an d t h a t t he de fend an t has prod uc ed a[ ] neutra l expl anati on, the burden- sh ifting apparatus has ser ved i ts pu rpos e, and the onl y r em ai ni ng quest i on

— th e onlyquesti on the j ury need answer

— i s whethe r the pla i nti ffi s a vi cti m of i ntenti onaldi scr i m i nati on. ” Id. (em p ha sis in origi na l)

. Th e exc lusion o f L ew is’ s pr et ex t i ns truct i o n di d no t r en derthe fi na l i ns truct i o ns i n ac c u ra te , no r d id it ca u se co n fu sio n for t h e jur y. L ew is was fr ee t o a r g ue th at th e ex pl an at i o ns g i ve n b y the Defen dan ts wer e no t b eli ev ab l e an d po i ntt o the ev i den ce sh o wi ngwhy. W e fi nd no e r r o r wi ththe r efus alt o g i ve a pr et ex t i ns truct i o n.

7. Gen e r al Ins t r uc t i ons The dis tr i ct j u d ge’ s websi te say s that “ [ t] hi s co urt has a do pt e d s e v e r a l g e ne r a l i ns t r uc t i o ns tha t wi l l b e p r e s umptiv ely u se d in all c as es .” See http: //w w w . i l nd

. uscour ts. gov/ j udg e/ ca st i l l o / st an d in g t r . p d f, ¶ 1 1
. T h e g e n e r a lin s t ru ct i o ns ad d re ss su bj ec ts su c h as th e b u rd en of p ro of, w h at co n st itutes ev i dence, and how a singl e cr edibl e witness can ove rco m e a gr eat ernum ber o fo pp osing witne sse s o n any s peci fi c poi nt. Lew i s cl ai m s the j ud ge’ s f ai l ure to i ncl ud e hi s g ener ali nstr ucti ons i n herca se const i tuted an er ro r. W e di sag re e. Lewi s di d no t m ak e an y o bj ec ti o n r eg ar d ing th e f ai lur e to g i ve the g en er ali ns truct i o ns . Inde ed, s he admi ts tha t sh e di d no t r ea l i ze the g en er ali nstr uct i o ns w ere not given un tilafter the fi na l instru ctions w ere22 N o. 08

- 2877

r e a d a n d th e j u r y r e t i r e d t o d e l ib e r a t e . L e wi s c l a i ms surpri se but i t’ s diffi cul t t o see wh y. Rule 51 ( b) r equi re s that the c ourt“info rm the p ar tie s o fi ts propos ed i nstr uctions
. . . before instru cting the j ury and before fi na l ju ry ar gum ents. ” The j ud ge did j ust t h at and the gener al i nstr ucti ons w er e not part of the set that th e judge i nt en d ed t o gi ve. There was no r eas on f orLew i s t o ass um e the j ud ge w oul d opera te outsi de the b ou n d s o f th atr ul e byg i vingi ns truct i o ns tha t were n ot par t o fthe setfo r mal l y p r o po s e d t o the p a r t i e s a nd n o tdi s c us sed at al l duri ng the i nstr ucti on co nfe re nce. Lewi s f o cus es o n o ne i ns truct i o n in pa r ti cul artha t sh e c l a i ms s ho ul d h a v e b e e n g i ven

— th e “ si ngl e witness” i nstr ucti on, wh i ch i nfo rm s a j ury that the t est i m ony of a s i ngl e witness m ay be s uffi ci ent t o prove any f act, eve n if a g re ate r num bero fwitnes ses m ay have tes ti fi ed to th e c on tr ar y. See J ud ge Casti l l o GeneralInstr u c tio ns, Appel l an t’ s Re pl y S upp. App. a t 7. To the e xt en t an y d am ag e w as d on e b y n otp ro vid in g t h is in st ru c tio n, i t was min i m i ze d b y the f ac t th at L ew i s’ s cl o singa r g um ent e xplained to the j uror s that they were enti tl ed to be l i ev e he r a nd fi nd s he met he r b urd en de spi te the ex i st en ce o fpo ss ibl e wi tn es se s sh e di d no t ca l l

. Tho ug h a closing argu m en t can not serve as a su bstitu te for a cou rt’s j u ry ins tr u c t ion, see U nited Sta tes v. Wa lters, 91 3 F
. 2d 388, 392 (7th C ir . 1 990), it can be ac cou nt ed f or w he n d eterm in in g if th er e w as p lain err or . Se eU ni t e d St at e s . v. Jac ks on, 56 9 F. 2d 1003 , 10 10 ( 7th Ci r. 19 78)
. But i n any eve nt, Lew i s has notsho w n how the abse nce o fthe general i nstr ucti ons coul d hav e affect ed hersubst anti alr i ghts or se riou sly affe c te d th e p ro c ee d in gs . See H ig b e e v. Sentry In s . Co
. , 440 F.3d 408 , 409 (7th C ir. 2006).N o. 08

- 2877 23 B. Evi den t i ary Ru l i ngs Le wi s a l s o a pp e a l s s e v e r a l e v i de nt i a r y r ul i ng s ma de d uring the trial. De cisions t o ex clud e evide nc e are gi ven co nsi derabl e defer ence, o ver turned o nly f oran ab us e o fdi sc r et i o n. Alveri o v. Sam ’s Wareho u se C lub, Inc. , 253 F. 3d 933, 94 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. A new tri ali s warran ted onl y i f t h e er ro r has a subst anti aland i nj uri ous e ffect or i nfl uence on the deter m i nati on of a j ury and the res u lt i s i n c on sis te n t w ith su b st an tia l j u st ice
. Cerab i o L LC v. Wrigh t M edic a l Tech ., Inc ., 410 F.3d 981 , 994 (7th C ir. 2005). I n additi on, ev en i fa j ud ge’ s deci si on i s found to b e errone ou s, it m ay be d eem ed harm less i f th e record i nd i cate s the tria l r esul t would have bee n the sam e. A lver io , 25 3 F
. 3d at 942.

1. M a rch 13 , 200 3 Injury T he district co u r t d e c ided not to all ow Le w is to testify or giv e e vid en c e p er ta in in g t o th e M ar c h 13 inc id en t in w hi ch she w as acci den ta lly i nj ured bya fel l ow offi cer du ring a f or ced entr y into a ho m e. The j ud ge r eli ed on Feder alRule o fE vid ence 403 fi nd i ng tha t the pro bati ve val ue o fthe tes ti m ony w as sub st anti al l y o utw ei ghed by th e d an ge r of u n fair p rej u d ice . A d ist ric t c ou rtis aff o r ded a spe ci alde g r ee o fdefer en ce whende ci di ng w h et h er ev id en c e is u n fair ly p rej u d ic i a l u n d er R u le 40 3. E stat e of M o relan d v . D ieter, 39 5 F. 3d 747, 75 4- 55 ( 7th C ir. 20 05 ). I t is a r a r e c a se w h er e a p p ella te co u rt s w ill se co nd- g ue ss the j udg m en t o fthe pe rs o n o n the s po t, the tr ial jud ge . Id

.24 N o. 08

- 2877 Lew i s was hopi ng to co nvi nce the j ury that the M ar ch 13 i nci dent showed that W i l l i am s was purposely pl aci ng her i n pr ec ar i o us s i tu at ions i n r et al i at i o n f o r he r fi l i ngthe di s c r i mi na t i o n c o mpl a i nt
. Bu ta s the di s t r i c tj ud g e n o t e d, h e a llow e d L ew is t o p re se n t e vid en c e o n th at p oin t in var i ous w ays : byo ffer i ng ev i dence thatshe w as ass i gned to i nvest i gat e a ci ti zen’ s co m pla i nt byh er sel f; thatshe w as as sig n ed t o a “ s h ot s fire d ” c all; th at sh e w as qu ick ly tra n s ferred from pa rtne r to partn er so that she cou ldn ’t es tabl i sha s afe wor k i ngr el at i o ns hi p wi tha ny o fthe m ; a nd by d iv er tinghe r fr o m a n in- pr o g r es s bur g l ar y t o a more d an ge ro u s a ss ign m en t o n M ar c h 13
. Lewis , 56 3 F. Supp.2d at 918. S o Lew i s was al l owed to pre sent an abundance o f evi den c e to supp or t hercl ai m thatshe w as re tal i ate d ag ains t byb eingg i ve n mor e dan g er o us a ss i g nm en ts
. S he w as sim p ly n otallow ed to p re se n t h igh ly p rej u d icia l te st im o ny c o nc erni ngthe f ac t tha t dur i ngo ne o ftho se a ss i g nmen t s , s he wa s a c c i de nt a l l y i nj ur e d. W e agr ee w i th the j ud ge’ s a sse ssm ent that the bl ow-bybl o w st o r y o fthe M ar ch1 3 i nci den t

— i nv o l vingb eing ac cid en tal l y hi t i n the he ad wi tha s l edg eh amm era nd susta i ni ng a bro ken ne ck

— w as “h i gh ly in flam m at or y.” Lewis , 563 F.Su p p .2d at91 8. E vid en c e is u n fa irly p rej u d ic ial, “ifi t wil l i nd uce the j ury to deci de the case o n an im p ro per basi s, co m m onl y a n em oti onalo ne, r ather than on the evi dence pres ented. ” U ni t e d St at e s v. Zahurs ky, 58 0 F .3d 5 1 5 , 5 25 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ). Th e d ist ric t jud ge fairly wei g he d the pr o ba ti ve v al ue o ftha t ev i den ce ag ains t th e danger ofunfa i r prej u dice and cor re ctl y deci ded to excl ud e i t. That dete rm i nati on w as n ot an abuse o fdi scr et i o n.N o. 08

- 2877 25 2. D enia l of S urg ery Lew i s a l so chal l enges the deci si on t o excl ud e e vi dence re l ate d to the C i ty’ s d eni alof herrequest f ornecksur ger y, w hi ch she hoped to offeri n supp or t ofherr eta l i ati on cl ai m . Th e pro bl em i s th atthe r e was no e vi den ce c o nnecti ng W i l l i am s t o the deni alo fsur ger y o r showing that th e d eci si on- m ake rs withi n the City ’ s m edi calse cti on had any kn ow led ge ofLew i s’ s Ti tl e VI Ico m pla i nt. Lew i s co nceded the poi nt attr i alwh en

— du ring an offer ofpro of

— she a cknowle dged that ther e was no evi dence tha tthe me di c a l secti on h a d a nykno wl e dg e o fthe EE OC c h ar ge . See Tr. at23 4- 35. So the dist ri ct cour t, usi ng i ts disc re ti on under Rul e 4 03, ex cl ude d the e vi den ce. T he j udg e f o und tha t, i n the ab se nc e o fe vi den ce tha t th e peo pl e who d en i ed th e su r g ery kne w tha t sh e fi l ed a co m pl ainto fdi sc r i m i na ti o n, su che vi den ce ha d v er y l i tt l e pr o ba ti ve v al ue . On th e ot h er sid e o f th e s c a le w as co n c er n th at allow in g L ew is an d a h os t o fm e d i c al w itn es se s t o t es tify ab ou t t h e d ifficul tys he was ha vingi n g et tings urge r y mightr un the ri sk ofthe j ury deci ding the ca se bas ed on s ym pathy f or L ew is. Lewis , 563 F.Sup p . 2d at 919. The district c o urt ’s deci si on t o excl ud e the t es ti m ony w as not an abuse o fdi sc r et i o n.

3. EE O C D e t e r m i nat i on, Int e r nal Inves t igat i on and t he P r o mo t i o n o

f Wi l l i a ms The next i ssue ra i sed b y L ew i s co ncer ns the di str i ct j ud ge’ s deci si on unde r R u l e 4 03 to excl ud e e vi dence26 N o. 08

- 2877 p ertaining to th e E E O C de term ination, the C it y’s i nter nal i nvest i gat i on, and the prom oti on o fW i l l i am s. A lth ou gh ad m in ist ra tiv e find in gs m ay b e ad m iss ible un d er Fed eral Ru les ofE v id en ce 803 (8)( C ) an d 801(d )( 2), the di str i ct c ourt“r eta i ns si gni fi cant dis c reti on a s t o w h et h e r [t h e d et er m in at ion s] o u gh t t o b e a d m itt ed .” Hallowa y v. M il w auk eeCo unty, 18 0 F
. 3d 820, 82 7 n. 9 ( 7th C i r . 1 9 9 9 )
. The E E O C d e c i s i o n i n t o L e wi s ’ s c l a i ms sta ted onl y that i t “deter m i ned that the evidence ob ta in ed in t h e in ve st iga tio n es ta b lish e s rea so n ab le cause to bel i eve t h at Respondent denie d C harg i ng Par ty an o ver ti m e a nd traini ng o pp or tuni ty and ret al i ate d aga i nst Charg i ng Par ty by re ass i gni ng heri n vi ol ati on o f Tit l e VI I
. ” Thi s s tat es only a c oncl usi on a nd does not pr o vi de m ucha ddi ti o na l pro ba ti ve i nf o r m at i o n, a s th e d ist ric t jud ge fou n d

. Lewis , 56 3 F
. Supp.2d a t 9 19. It m er el y pr ese nts the qu esti on the j ury w as tas ked with answ er i ng. A nd i t co uld have c on fused the j ury i nto th in kin g th at th e is su e w as alre ad y d ec id ed

. Tull os v. Ne ar N
. M ontes so ri S ch ool, Inc. , 776 F.2d 150 , 153-54 (7th C ir. 1985 ) (find ing no ab us e of d is c r e tion w he re l ow er cou rt excl ud ed EE OC deter m i nati on be cause i ts consi derat i on “w as tantam ou n t to say i ng thi s has al re ady be en deci ded an d he r e i s th e dec i si o n. ”)
. The sam e is true o fthe City ’ s inter nal i nvest i gat i on, wh i ch actual l y e xoner at ed W i l l i am s. Th e j ud ge w as persuaded thatadm i tting ei ther ofthe pri ori nvest i gat i ons i n evi d en c e w oul d cre ate a su b st anti alr i sk that the j ury w oul d adopt the ear l i er concl usi ons. S o he exer ci sed hi s di sc re tion, chos e t o re m ain co n sis te n t a n d ex c lu d ed bo th

. Lewis , 56 3 F
. Supp.2d at9 20 n. 4
. Thi s was no t anabus e o fdi sc r et i o n.N o. 08

- 2877 27 Lew i s had ar gued the i nter nal i nvest i gat i on was re l evantbec ause the e xoner ati on o fW i l l i am s s er ved as a re tal i ato rym ea sure ag ai nst Lewis hers el f

. But Lew i s was not pu rsu ing a clai m based on a c o n t in uin g host il e w ork en vi r o nm en t, a s was the c as e i n Vel ez v. City of C hic ago , w here a f ai l ure to re m ed y w as d i scusse d as g ro und s for l i abi l i ty. 44 2 F
. 3d 1043 , 10 47 ( 7th C i r. 2006) (“An em plo yer i s l i ab l e f o r a ho st i l e work en vi r o nm en t cl ai m i f

. . . the em plo yerwas ‘ negl i gent ei theri n disc ove ring or re m edyi ng the har ass m ent. ’ ”) ( quoti ng M as on v. S. Ill
. U ni v. , 23 3 F. 3d 1036 , 10 43 ( 7th Cir. 2 000) )
. Lew i s had the burden ofpro vi ng the di scr ete acts o fr eta l i ati on. Even under Lew i s’ s “ f ai l ure to re m edy” theor y, thi s e vi dence d oe s n otgo v er y fa r inp ro vin g h er ca se for re ta liat ion . A j ud ge a nd j ur y wo ul d f a c e di ffi c ul t i e s i ff o r c e d t o na vi g at e th r o ug h a r ec o r d m uddl ed be twe eni nt er se ct i ng and parti al l y o ver l apping pie ces ofev i de nce pre sente d du ring the i nvest i gat i on an d the t ri al, subm i tte d und er differ i ng ev i denti ar y s tandards. The j ud ge w as f re e t o concl ud e that the ri sk ofco nfusi on o utw ei ghed the proba

ti ve val ue. L ew is al so ch all en ges th e exc lu s io n of eviden ce p ertai ni ng to the prom oti on ofW i l l i am s w hi ch oc curr ed after sh e l o dge d he r g en derdi sc r i m i na ti o n com pl aint
. S he cl ai m s that th e C i ty has a pol i cy to re consi der the pro m oti o n o f o ffi c e r s a ft e r the y r e c e i v e s us t a i ne d a l l e g a t i o ns o f disc ri m i nati on, and si nce no such r eco nsi derat i on o ccurr e d, s he s ho ul d h a v e b e e n ab l e t o u s e the p r o mot i on as a sign al o fdi sc r i m i na to r y a nd r et al i at o r y i nt en t. S he say s the co ver - up se rv ed as furtherr eta l i ati on a nd thata j ur y c o ul d i nferi t was do ne t o prot ec t W i l l i ams, a hi g hra nking o ffi cerwith the Departm ent.28 N o. 08

- 2877 The prom oti on o fW i l l i am s offer ed l i ttl e insi ght into th e C i ty’ s di scr i m i natory a nd /o r re tal i ato rytr eat m ent o f L ew is herself, w hich w as th e actu al m atter at issu e. So th e e v i d e n c e h a d v e r y l i t t l e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e . B y th e s a me tok en, i t would have b een t i m e- consum i ng to pre sent. And i t woul d a l so ha ve s hi fte d the f o cus from the acti ons tak en ag ai nst Lewis to the c om peti n g m er i ts of W i l l i ams a nd whe th erhe a ctua l l y de se r ve d a pr o m o ti o n. Se eM anu e l v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 335 F.3d 592 , 5 9 7 (7th Cir. 2003 ) (fin d ing sp ecu lative testim ony abou t a sup ervisor’s pr ev i o us a ct s o fr ac i sm to b e unf ai r l y p rej udi ci al )
. Excl udi ngthe e vi den ce co nc erni ngthe mer i ts o fpr o m o ting W i l l i ams was wel l wi th i n the di st r i ctj udg e’ s di sc r et i o n.

4. O f f i ce rWar ni ngs t o L e wis t o “Wat ch He rBack” Lew i s next chal l enges the excl usi on o fst ate m ents f ro m O ffice rs M u h n ey , O live r, W ea th er sp oo n a n d D av is. L ew is conte nd s these offi cer s a dvis ed herto “watch herbac k” w hen r esp on d ing t o ass i gnm ents gi ven o ut byW i l l i am s, i m ply i ng t h at he was plo tting to ta ke re tal i ato ryact i on ag ain sth er . Th e s ta te m en t s th em se lve s h ad little pr o ba ti ve v al ue s i nc e th eywer e no t co m m en ts o fthe d ec isio n -m ak er h im se lf. O ’Regan v. Arbi tration Forum s, Inc. , 24 6 F
. 3d 975, 9 86 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( “S ta te m en ts b y a no ndeci si o n- mak e r tha ta mou ntt o me r e s pe c ul a t i o n a s to the thoughts ofthe deci si on- m ake r ar e i rr el evantto an in q u iry of d isc rim i n a t i on .”); C hia ram o nte v . Fash io n B ed Grp
. , 12 9 F
. 3d 391, 39 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ( “S ta te m en ts by i nf e r i o r e mpl o y e e s a r e no t pr o b a t i v e o f a n i nt e nt t o di scrim inate by the d ecisionm aker.”).N o. 08

- 2877 29 W h en L ew is t rie d to ca ll O ffice r D av is a t t r i a l , sh e s aid th a tDa v i s wo u l d t e s t i fy th a th e “ s a w L i e u t e n a n tWi l l i a ms going off i n th e s ta tion. ” See Tr. at63 6. The j ud ge re sp ond ed that i f D avis “can testif y a s to the d efend an t’s a c t i ngi n a c e r t a i n man ne r a nd r e l a t e s tha tt o the EE OC com pla i nt, that ’ s fi ne. ” Id . So itw ou ld h av e b ee n p er m iss ibl e forthe offi cer s t o te st i fy i ftheysa w fro m per sonal kn ow ledge W il lia m s rant ing an d raving abou t L ew is’ s disc ri m i nati on co m pla i nt. But theyc ou ld notsi m plybe c alle d to te sti fy that W i l l i am s was “o ut to ge t her

. ” That w ou ld h av e b ee n u tt er sp ec u lat ion an d h igh ly p rej u d ic i a l

. T he s t a t e men t s we r e the r e f o r e p r o pe r l y e xc l ud e d. Forwh at i t’ s worth, Lew i s m anage d t o getthe evi dence bef or e the j ury anyway. S he was perm i tte d to tes ti fy a t tr i al that Offi cer s W eathers poon and Davi s tol d h er that Li eu te na ntW i l l i ams “wen t o ff ” when he “f o und ou t ab o ut the [ di s c r i mi na t i o n] c o mpl a i nt a nd the y t o l d me to w at c h m y b ac k, th at h e w as d efin ite ly ou t t o ge t m e.” See T r. at 2 2 5
. S o L ew is go t m u c h of w h at sh e w an te d in any e vent. Excludi ng the witnes ses fro m te sti fyi ng to thei r specul ation t h at W i l l i am s was “o ut to ge t Lewis” w as en tirel y prop er.

5. O ther A cts of D iscrim ina tio n a nd R etal ia tio n A ga inst O ther E m plo yees Lew i s cl ai m s the j ud ge w ro ngfully excl ud ed evi dence ofo theract s o f gender di scr i m i nati on a nd r eta l i ati on by the Ci ty. Lew i s wanted to show acts tak en by“o ther p ol i c e s u p er vis or y p er so n n el”

— no t W i l l i ams. In Lewis I, thi s Cou r t af f i rm ed sum m ar y j ud gm ent a s t o30 N o. 08

- 2877 Lew i s’ s § 1983 cl ai m agai nst the C i ty, f ora l ack ofev i dence d em ons trating an exp ress p oli cy of discrim inat io n o r a wi d e s p r e a d p r a c t i c e o fi g n o r i ng d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c o mp lain ts
. Lewis , 49 6 F
. 3d at 656. T hus, the re m ai ni ng i ssue at tr ial w as w hetherther e were acts o fdi scr i m i nati on o r re tal i ati on a i m ed at Lew i s, notanyb ody e l se. A ccor dingl y, the j ud ge cor re ctl y hel d th at evi dence ofdi scr i m i nati on and ret al i ation ag ai nst o therem plo yee s would be o f lim ite d va lu e. Seeaccord, Grayson v. O ’N eil , 30 8 F
. 3d 808, 816 ( 7th Cir
. 2002 ) ( “Evi dence of gener al i zed r aci sm dire cted ato ther s i s no t r el evantunl ess i t has so m e r el ati o ns hi p wi th th e empl o y m en t dec i si o n in que st i o n. ”)
. The hi gh l i kel i hood o fj urorco nfusi on a nd in h er ent del ay th at w ou ld su re ly a c c om p an y th e d isp u te s i n vo lve d in th e in tr od u c tio n of th is e vid en c e o u tw eig h ed w h at lit t le val ue co uld be gl eaned fro m i t.

C . P ropriety of C losing A rgum en ts L ew is a d d itio n ally se ek s a n ew tria l ba se d on alleg ed ly p rej u d icia l st at em en ts m ad e b y c ou n se l fo r th e C ity in th ei r c l o singa r g um en ts
. Sp ec i fi ca l l y, Le wi s ta k es i ss ue w i th th e Ci t y ’ s c r i t i c i s m o fh e r f a i l ur e t o p r o du c e o the r w i tness es and evi dence thatwould cor ro b orate her sto ry . Fo r exam ple , t h e C ity poi nted out i n cl osing tha t L ew is h ad n otp ro d u c ed th e o ffice rs w h o w er e rid in g in the s quad c ar w hen W i l l i am s a l l ege dlyas si gned herto a s s i s twi th the nar cot i c s c a l l, o r the o ffi c e r wh o s up posedl y t ol d Lew i s th at h erS OS tr ansferr equest had been bl ock ed by so m eone atan upper l eve l

. The Ci ty su gg es te d to th e jur y t h at th es e e ve n ts d id n ’t a c tu allyN o. 08

- 2877 31 ha ppen, an d th at “the r e i s no co r r o bo r at i o n [of] a ny th i ng that she a l l ege d happ ened i n thi s ca se. ” Tr
. at10 04. L e wi s a r g u e s tha tth i s wa s a mi s s t a t e me n to fth e l a w. S he c i te s to Pa tt ern Ins truct ion § 1
. 18 , whi chs ay s, “ [ t] he law doe s not req uire an y pa rty to calla s a w itness every perso n w ho m i ght ha ve knowle dge o fthe f act s rel ate d to th is tri al

. S i m i l ar l y, the l aw does notr equi re any party to prese nt as exhibi ts al l papers and thi ngs m enti oned du r i ng thi s t ri al

. ” See S EV EN T H C IR CUIT P ATTE RN J URYI NS T RUCT ION § 1
. 18, Com m ent E. Lew i s f ai l ed to obj ec tt o the c l o s i nga r g ume ntwh e n mad e a nd h a s there

f or e wai ved the i ssue on app eal

. I m properst ate
m ents should b e obj ecte d to w hen m ade, so as to gi ve the t ri alj ud ge a chance to c or re ct a ny prej ud i ce c aused by the s tat em ent. D oeBy an d Through G. S. v. Johns on , 52 F.3d 14 48, 1465 (7th C ir. 1995). I n a n y e v e n t, we fi n d th a tth e D e fe n d a n t s ’ c l o si ng d id not c re ate an i m properm i ssing witne ss i nstr ucti on oro ther w i se unfai rl y p re j ud i ce Lewis. “Attor neys have m or e l eeway i n cl osing ar gum ents to sugge st i nfe re nces base d on the evi dence, hi ghl i ght weaknes ses i n the oppon en t’s c as e, an d em p h as ize st re n gt h s in th eir ow n c as e.” Soltys v. C oste ll o , 520 F.3d 73 7, 74 5 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). In L ittlefield v. M cG uffey, 9 54 F
. 2d 13 37, 1 34 7 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 2), the C ou rtf ound that a n ar gum ent that “ ther e’ s no t a single w itn e ss, not a si ng le w itness pu t forth to corrobor ate any sto rythathe w as al l ege dlyto l d,” was not i m proper . The m i ssi ng-w itness r ule “per m i ts an i nfer en ce o funf av o r abl e t es ti m o ny fr o m the mis sing w it n e s s ,” b u t m ay on ly b e in vo ke d “if th at w itn es s is32 N o. 08

- 2877 peculi ar l y withi n the op p os i ng par ty’ s power t o produ ce. ” Id . a t 13 46
. Li t t l e f i e l d drew a dis ti ncti on be tw een as k i nga j ur y t o i nfer th ata mis singwi tn es s’ s te st i m o ny w oul d be unf avo rabl e ( w hi ch i s not al l owed acc or ding to the m i ssing- w i tness r ule ) and ask i ng a j ury to questio n a par ty ’ s cr edibi l i ty be ca us e i t pr o duce d no corro b or at in g e vid en c e (w h ich is p er m iss ible ). Id

. at 1346

- 47. S i nc e th e Ci tywas a tt empti ng to sh o w the l at te r, the cl osing ar gum ent was appro pri ate
.
D . Su f f i ci ency o fEvi den ce Lewi s’ s final c l ai m i s th atthe v er di ctwas a g ains t th e m ani festweight o fthe evi dence. The st andard ofr evi ew o f a t ri alco urt’ s deci si on t o d en y a m oti on f ornew tri alo n thi s g ro und i s “ abuse ofdi scr eti on. ” M oore ex. re l. Estate of Grady, v. Tu le

ja , 546 F.3d 42 3, 42 7 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). C h all enger s be ara “part i cul ar l y hea vy burden” be cause a cour t wil l se t a si de a v erd ict a s co ntra ryto the m ani fest w eig h t o f th e e vid en c e “ on ly if n o ra tio n al jur y c ou ld have re nd er ed the v er dict

. ” Id

. The r evi ew i ng co urt m ust vi ew the ev i den ce i n the l i ghtmos t f av o r ab l e to the pr ev ai l i ngpa r ty, l ea ving is su es o fc r edibi l i tya nd wei g ht of e vid en c e t o th e jur y. Kin g v . Har ri ngton , 44 7 F
. 3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2006). On the di scr i m i nati on cl ai m , the j ury w as entit l ed to b e l i e v e Wi l l i a ms whe n he t e s t i fi e d tha th e n e v e r ma de the di scr i m i nator y sta tem ents al l ege d by Lewis and that he ha d no di sc r i m i na to r y i nt en t. In Lew is I, w e a c kn ow ledged the I M F m em o w as dir ect evid en c e ofdi scr i m i nation, bu t o n ly w he n review ing it in the l ight m ost favor-N o. 08

- 2877 33 ab le t o L ew is for p u rp os es o f su m m ar y jud gm en t. Lewis , 49 6 F
. 3d at 65 2. W e fur th er st at ed th at a g en ui ne i ss ue o fma t e r i a l f a c te x i s t e d a s t o w h e th e r g e n d e r d i s c r i min at ion oc c u rre d

. Id

. Chi efM au r ert es ti fi ed tha t th e m em o did notr eflect an actualdi scr i m i natory pol i cy, an d that the C it y had no inten t to treat fem ale offi cers any di ffer entl y than m al es. Even i fthe j ury did notbel i eve W i l l i am s o r M aure r on thos e points, i t s ti l l co uld have co n c lu d ed that ther e was no m ate ri al l y a dvers e a cti on t ake n ag ai nst Lewis. W hatev er ca re er be n efit s t h e IM F d et ail m a y h av e b es to w ed , a tac t i c a l o ffi c e r i n Le wi s ’ s p o s i t i o n ha d the o pp o r t unit y to p articipate i n sev eral other sim il ar de tails each year. Lewi s he r se l fl at erwor k ed o n a s ec ur i tyde ta i l f o r the P re sid en t a n d ata lat er IM F m ee t i n g h eld in C h ica g o . Other offi ce r s wer e den i ed th e ch an ce t o g o t o the W ashi ngto n, D. C. detai l and sti l l r ecei ved pro m oti ons. W i thr es pec t to the r et al i at i o n c l ai m , the r e was a r ea so nabl e ba si s for t h e j ury to bel i eve thatthe acti ons poi nted to by L ew is w ere not reta li atory at all, bu t m erely part ofherj ob. Forexam ple , tho ugh she w as tol d by W illia m s o n O c to b er 4 to res p on d to a “s h ot s fire d ” c all, th er e w as ev id en c e t h at su c h ca lls oc c u rre d freq u en t ly i n h erdi st r i ct
. S he was wi tht wo o th ero ffi ce r s atthe ti m e. In f act, she and her partner s were al re ady r esponding to the cal l at the ti m e W i l l i am s g ave hi s o rder, so a j ury coul d easi l y con cl ud e that the as si gnm ent was not out ofthe or dinar y o r m ade with r eta l i ato rym oti ve. For the M arch 13 i nc iden t, L ew is’ s ow n tes tim ony l eft ro om f ord ou bt a s t o w hetheri t was actual l y W i l l i am s o n34 N o. 08

- 2877 th e ra d io re -as sig n in g h er to th e n ar c ot ics as sis t. Sh e s aid i t was a m al e v oice , b ut she w as unsure i fi t was W illiam s o r n o t. W illiam s t yp ica lly b eg an an y ra d io c all by i denti fyi ng hi m sel fas “Beat36 0, ” but no s uch si gnal was made o n the c al l i n que st i o n. F ur th er, the Ci ty put f or w ar d evi dence thatas si sting with narco ti cs c al l s was a nor m alpartof an o ffi cer ’ s j ob. A l so, Lew i s di d not nec essar i l y pr ov e th at ass i sting a narco ti cs t eam was so m eho w i nhe r en tly mor e dan g er o us tha n inv es ti g at i nga n inprog re ss burgl ar y c al l, so the j ury c ou l d have be l i eve d that s he wa s mo v e d fr o m a r i s k i e r a s s i g nme ntt o a s a fer one. Lew i s a l so ar gued that W i l l i am s r eta l i ate d against he r byo r der i nghe r t o i nv es ti g at e a CA PS c o m pl aintwi th o ut a par tn er . Evi dence showed, how eve r, thathe di d not te l l he r t o i nv es ti g at e th e co m pl ainti m m edi at ely, b ut i nstea d to w ai t fora unif or m ed offi certo bec om e a vai l abl e. Tha t i s pr ec i se l y whatLe wi s di d, a nd th en c o nduc te d the i n v e s t i g a t i o n wi th o u ti n c i d e n t
. Wi th r e s p e c tt o th e C APS re port s that Lewis fi l l ed out, the j ury w as provi ded with enough evi dence to concl ud e that they w er e “ ki cked ba ck” to her because they w ere incom ple te and requi re d m or e deta i l s about her i nvest i gat i on, notbec ause her supervi sor s were re tal i ati ng agai nst he r f orfi l i ng di scr i mi n a t i o n c o mpl a i n t s . T h e j u r y wa s fr e e t o e x a m i ne the ini ti alr epor t, wh i ch w as enter ed i nto evi dence, se e th at it co n sis te d of on ly th re e lin es , an d find it w as j u st ifiabl y r etur ned to Lew i s. A s f or Lew i s’ s re quest to tr ansfer to the SOS unit, wh i ch w ou ld h ave m oved her aw ay from W il li am s’s su p er-N o. 08

- 2877 35 vi si o n, the r e was e vi den ce tha t Chi efM au r ermade th e deci si on t o rej ect the t ra nsfer, notW i l l i am s. A nd C hi ef Ma u e r t e s t i f i e d th a th e w a s u n a wa r e o fL e wi s ’ s d i s c r i mi nati on co m pla i nt. H e a l so den ied the thre e o ther r eq u es ts from L ew is’s d ist ric t, d em on st ra tin g t h at h is deci si on was n ot speci fi cal l y di re cted ag ai nst Lewis or m ade out ofany re tal i ato rym oti ve. I n s um , the Ci tya nd W i l l i ams pr esent ed su ffi ci en t ev id en c e t o p ro vid e t h e jur y a re a s o n a b l e b as is t o fin d in thei r f avo r. Th e v er dictwas not aga i nst the m ani fest w ei ght o fthe evi dence.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The deci si on o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

12- 21- 09