FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MARCH 2 9, 20 12 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 0- 13 21 4 D. C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 8- cv -6 20 05 -CM A ANGELE KE SARIDAKIS, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a (Ma rch 29 , 20 12 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, MARC US an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ang el ek e Sar id ak is bro ug htth is act io n i n t he di st ric t co urt ag ai ns t h er

em pl oyer, Sou th Bro wardHos pi ta l Di st ric t (“ SBHD”), fo r ret al ia ti on un de r Tit le VII o f th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , th e Fl or id a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 92 (“ FCRA” ), an d t he Equ al Pay Act (“ EPA”) i n re la ti on to all eg at io ns of u ne qu al pa y an d t he no n- ren ewal of h er em pl oym en t co nt ract . The jury returne d ave rd ic t in fav orof S BHD an d the di st ric t co urt en te reda jud gm en t o n t he jury’ s v erd ic t i n fav orof S BHD. W e aff

irm. I. Sari da ki s wo rk edfor

SBHD as a tr au m a su rg eo n. Aft er h er co ntractwas n ot ren ewedin Aug us t 2 00 6, Sa rid ak is fil edsu itag ai ns t SB HD ass ert in g c la im s o f se x di sc riminat io n a s t o h er p ay an d t he no n- ren ewal of h er co nt ractinvi ol at io n o f Tit le VII an d t he FCRA; ret al ia ti on in vi ol at io n o f Tit le VII, th e FCRA, andth e EPA; an d v io la ti on of the EPA. On Dec em

be r 15 , 20 09 , th e p art ie s fi le d jo in t p ro po se d ju ry in st ru ct io ns . Tria l was he ldfro m

Marc h 2 to Marc h 1 6, 2 01 0. Th e p art ie s s ub m it te d i ni ti al pr op os edve rd ic t fo rm s dur in g t he co ur se of t he tri al . Sari da ki s’s i ni ti al pro po se d
ve rd ic t fo rm

po se d t he fol lo win g que st io ns : Do you f in d fr om a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce:

21. Th atAng el ek e Sar id ak is en ga ge d i n ast atut or il y pro te ct ed act iv it y un de r Fed eral an d S ta te law? 2. Th at[SBHD] subjec te d An ge le ke Sari da ki s t o a n a dv ers e em pl oym en t ac ti on , at l eas t i n p art , th atwas c au sa ll y rel at edto he r pr ot ect edact iv it y ? [R. 2 11 -1 (Exh . A) at 3 –4 .] SBHD’s in it ia l p ro po se d v erd ic t fo rm po se d a di ffer en t caus at io n que st io n a ndad de d asame-dec is io n d efen se qu es ti on : Do you f in d b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t: 3. Pl ai nt iff’s com

pl ai ntis cau sa ll y

co nn ect edto th e [SB HD’ s] de ci si on no t t o re ne w Pla in ti ff’s em pl oym en t ag reem en t; or, i n ot he r wor ds , if Pl ai nt iff

ha d n otco m

pl ai ne d, h er em

pl oym en t ag reem en t wo ul d h av e b een ren ewed
. 4. [S BHD] co ns id ereda fact or (s ) ot he r th anPla in ti ff’s co m pl ai nt (s ) of

di sc riminat io n i n m ak in g i ts de ci si on no t t o ren ew Pl ai nt iff’s em

pl oym en t ag reem en t? [Id
. (Exh . B) at5, 1 0.] Sari da ki s d idno t o bjec t t o S BHD’s in cl us io n o f a s am ede ci si on de fen se forth e ret al ia ti on cla im s b utch al le ng edth e p hr as in g o f th e sa m ede ci si on de fen se , arg ui ng th atSBHD’s fo rm ul at io n was in co rrec t. The di st ric t co urt ad vi se d t he pa rti es to pro vi de a joi ntrev is edve rd ic t fo rm . The pa rti es co ul d n otres ol ve th ei r di ffer en ces an d e ach subm it te d s ep arat e fin al pro po se d v erd ic t fo rm s. In Sari da ki s’s fi na l p ro po se d v erd ic t fo rm , sh e ad de d asame-dec is io n d efen se foron ly the Tit le VII an d t he FCRA d is cri m in at io n

3cl ai m s b utno t the ret al ia ti on cla im s. Fo r th e d is cri m in at io n c la im s, Sa rid ak is ’s

fo rm ask ed : Do you f in d b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce:

. . . 3. Th at[SBHD] con si de reda fact or (s ) ot he r th anAng el ek e Sari da ki s’s g en de r in m ak in g i ts de ci si on co nc ern in g h er ra te of pa y ?

. . . 3. Th at[SBHD] con si de reda fact or (s ) ot he r th anAng el ek e Sari da ki s’s g en de r in m ak in g i ts de ci si on no t t o re ne w her em pl oym en t ag reem en t? [R. 2 11 -6 (Exh . F) at3.] Sarid ak is di d n otin cl ud e a s am e-d eci si on de fen se fo r th e ret al ia ti on cla im s an d a rg ue d t ha t the re i s n o m ix ed -m ot iv e d efen se on ret al ia ti on . SBHD res po nd edth ata sam e-d eci si onde fen se co ul d b e rai se d fo r bo th di sc riminat io n a ndret al ia ti on cla im s an d t he co urt ag reed wit h S BHD. The co urt ac cep te d S BHD’s fin al pro po se d v erd ic t fo rm , whi chin cl ud edsame-dec is io n d efen se qu es ti on s fo r ret al ia ti on un de r Tit le VII, th e FCRA, andth e EPA: B. Ret al ia ti on un de r th e Equ al Pay Act: Do you f in d fr om a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce:

. . .
43. Th at[SBHD] con si de reda fact or (s ) ot he r th anAng el ek e Sari da ki s’s co m

pl ai nt (s ) of

wage di sc riminat io n i n the no nren ewal of h er em

pl oym en t ag reem en t?

. . . F. Ret al ia ti on - Tit le VII an d t he FCRA: Do you f in d b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce:

. . . 3. Th at[SBHD] con si de reda fact or (s ) ot he r th anAng el ek e Sari da ki s’s co m

pl ai nt (s ) of

ge nd er d is cri m in at io n i n t he no nren ewal of h er em

pl oym en t ag reem en t? [R. 2 11 -5 (Exh . E) at 2 , 4.] Jury in st ru ct io ns were d is tri bu te d a fte r cl os in g arg um en ts . The d is tri ctco urt i ns tru ct edth e jury onTit le VII, FCRA, an d EPA ret al ia ti on cla im s as fol lo ws: If y oufin d i n t he Pla in ti ff’s fav orwith re sp ectto each of t he fact s t he Pl ai nt iff m us t p ro ve , y oum

us t the n d eci de whet he r th e Defen da ntha s sh own by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the adve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on wou ldha ve be entak enforot he r rea so ns ev enin th e ab se nc e o f co ns id erat io n o f Pl ai nt iff’s pro te ct edact iv it y . If y ou fin d t ha t the adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on wou ldha ve be entak enfor reas on s ap artfro m

th e p ro te ct edact iv it y , th eny ou r ve rd ic t s ho ul d b e fo r th e Defen da nt .

. . . If y oude te rm in e th atPla in ti ff h as pro ve d t ha t h er s ta tu to ril y pr ot ect edact iv it y

was afact orm ot iv at in g Def en da nt ’s dec is io n n otto ren ew he r em

pl oym en t ag reem en t, the n youm us t co ns id er wh ethe r th e Defen da ntha s p res en te d a ny evi de nc e th atitwou ldha ve m ad e th e sa m e d eci si on reg ard le ss of P la in ti ff’s p ro te ct edact iv it y . If y ou fin d Def en da ntha s p ro ve n b y

a pr ep on de ran ce tha t i t wo ul d h av e 5m ad e th e sa m e d eci si on ev enif i t h adno t t ak enPla in ti ff’s p ro te ct ed

act iv it y in to acco un t, y oush ou ldm ak e th is fin di ng onth e v erd ic t fo rm . [R. 1 78 at 8 .] The jury

be ga n d el ib erat io ns on Marc h 1 7, 2 01 0. OnMarc h 1 8, 20 10 , th e jury sen t a n ot e to th e co urt re qu es ti ng cla rif ic at io n o n que st io n F .3 o f th e v erd ic t fo rm : “Needclarif ic at io n o n F 3: Is t he qu es ti on to be an swe redas i t i s li te ral ly stat ed ? Canth e que st io n b e st at edan y ot he r way ? Needto kn ow h ow qu es ti on is rel at edto ret al ia ti on .” [R. 1 82 at 1 .] The d is tri ctco urt d is cu ss edth e no te with t he pa rti es an d a do pt edlan gu ag e fro m th e jury ins tru ct io ns , ov er Sari da ki s’s o bjec ti on s. Th e co urt re st at edqu es ti on F.3 a s fo ll ows : “ Tha t [S BHD]
wou ldha ve m ad e th e d eci si on no t t o re ne w Ang el ek e Sar id ak is ’s em pl oym en t ag reem en t re ga rd le ss of a ny ste ps by Plai nt iff to en fo rce h er ri gh ts ? ” [Id
. at1.] An ho urlat er the jury se ntan ot he r no te : “ W e are de ad lo ck edon F3 . W e n eed
so m eo ne to tal k t o u s. Pl eas e!!! ” [Id
. at 2 .] The jury ret ire d a ndreco nv en edon Mar ch22 , 20 10 . On M arch 21 , 20 10 , Sari da ki s s ub m it te d atri al bri ef fo r supp le m en ta l jury in st ru ct io ns an d a n a m en de d v erd ic t fo rm . Sari da ki s ar gu edth ata sa m e-d eci si on de fen se was n otav ai labl e to SBHD on th e Tit le VII ret al ia ti on cla im be cau se th e st an da rdsh ou ldbe “bu t-f or ” cau sa ti on un de r Gro ss v. FBL Fin. Servs ., Inc
. , 55 7

6U.S. 16 7, 1 29 S. Ct. 2 34 3 (2 00 9) . Add it io na ll y , Sari da ki s ar gu edth atth e sa m ede ci si on de fen se requi redth e d efen da ntto pro ve by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t i t wo ul d h av e m ad e th e sa m e d eci si on ab se ntall eg edret al ia ti on , no t m erel y th atitha d c on si de redot he r fac to rs as s ug ge st edby que st io n F .3. The co urt was no t p ers ua de d b y Sari da ki s’s b rie f an d d ire ct edth e p art ie s t o dr afta res po ns e to th e jury’ s n ot e. Sari da ki s m ov edfora m is tri al be cau se th e di st ric t co urt fa il edto rev is e th e v erd ic t fo rm , bu t the m ot io n was de ni ed . W it h th e p art ie s’ app ro va l, the di st ric t co urt re sp on de d t o t he jury’ s s eco ndno te an d rep hr as edqu es ti on F.3: “ Do you f in d t ha t [S HBD] wou ldhave m ad e th e sa m e de ci si on of n otren ewin g An ge le ke Sari da ki s’s em pl oym en t ag reem en t ev enif i t ha d n ottak enPla in ti ff’s p ro te ct edact iv it y in to acco un t? ” [R. 1 82 at 3 .] The jury reac he d ave rd ic t i n fa vo r of SBHD onMarc h 2 2, 2 01 0. Onth e ret al ia ti on cla im s, the jury fo un d t ha t SB HD’ s d eci si on no t t o re ne w Sari da ki s’s
em pl oym en t ag reem en t was cau sa ll y co nn ect edto Sari da ki s’s p ro te ct edact iv it y , bu t tha t SB HD hadco ns id ereda fact orot he r th anSari da ki s’s p ro te ct edact iv it y in de ci di ng no t t o re ne w th e ag reem en t. The juro rs were p ol le d a t Sa rid ak is ’s reque st an d e achco nf

irmed th atqu es ti on F.3 was an swe redas i t was rep hr as ed . Fin al jud gm en t was en te redon Marc h 2 2, 2 01 0.

7Sari da ki s fi le d am ot io n t o a m en d t he jud gm en t u nd er Ru le 59 of t he

Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e as ki ng th e d is tri ctco urt: (1) to am en d t he jud gm en t; (2) fora ne w tri al on co m pe ns at ory dam ag es ; (3 ) fo r anev id en ti ary he ari ng ; (4 ) fo r en try of d ecl arat ory rel ie f; a nd(5) forin

jun ct iv e rel ie f. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d t he po st -tr ia l m ot io n i n i ts en ti rety onJu ne 7, 2 01 0. Sa rid ak is fil edth is ap pe al on Ju ly 7, 20 10 . II .

“ [W] he th er the jury in st ru ct io ns an d v erd ic t fo rm accu rat el y

refl ectth e la w” is a qu es ti on of l aw th atwe rev ie w de no vo . McNel y v. Oca la St ar -Ban ne r C or p. , 99 F.3d10 68 , 10 72 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). Ques ti on s o f st atut ory in te rp ret at io n are al so rev ie wed de no vo . Ch ep st owLtd. v. Hun t , 38 1 F .3d10 77 , 10 80 (11 thCir . 20 04 ). Thi s co urt re vi ews “

jury ins tru ct io ns an d v erd ic t fo rm s t og ethe r rat he r th an se pa rat el y

forrev ers ib le erro r.” Far le y v. Na ti on wi de Mut . Ins . Co. , 19 7 F .3d 13 22 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Whe re a p arty fai ls to ob

ject t o t he ve rd ic t fo rm be fo re jury

de li be rat io ns , we rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r. Id. Fu rth er, thi s co urt wi ll no t rev ie w an i ss ue rai se d o n app eal if i t i s wai ve d thr ou gh th e d oc tri ne of i nv it ed
erro r by requ es ti ng th e subs ta nc e o f th e in st ru ct io n g iv en . Uni te d Sta tes v. Bra nn an , 56 2 F .3d13 00 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). II I. 8On ap pe al , Sari da ki s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen itin st ru ct ed

th e jury tha t SB HD cou ldrai se th e sa m e-d eci si on de fen se ag ai ns t h er Tit le VII, 1 FCRA, an d EPA re ta li at io n c la im s. In th e al te rn at iv e, Sari da ki s ar gu es th atth e di st ric t co urt erredwhen itga ve juro rs anin co rrec t v erd ic t fo rm on th e EPA ret al ia ti on cla im
. A. Sa me-d

ecisi on de fe ns e. Sari da ki s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin gi vi ng a sa m e-d eci si on in st ru ct io n o n h er Tit le VII, FCRA, an d EPA re ta li at io n c la im s. Sh e arg ue s t ha t th e m ix ed -m ot iv e/ sa m e-d eci si on de fen se sh ou ldbe li m it edto th e subs ta nt iv e di sc riminat io n p ro vi si on s o f Tit le VII. Thi s co urt n eedno t i nd ep en de nt ly anal y ze whe th er the FCRA au th or iz es a sa m e-d eci si on de fen se to ret al ia ti oncla im s be cau se th e FCRA is pa tt ern edaft er Tit le VII an d c ou rts ge ne ral ly app ly T it le VII cas e la w to ret al ia ti on cla im s b ro ug htun de r th e FCRA. W il bu r v. C or r. S ervs . Co rp . , 39 3 F .3d11 92 , 11 95 n.1 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (n ot in g t ha t “ [t]he Flo rid a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act was pa tt ern edaft er Tit le VII, an d F lo rid a co urts ha ve co ns tru edth e act in acco rd an ce wi th de ci si on s o f fed eral co urts in te rp ret in g Ti tl e VII”) . For t he

Th e s am e-de cision or mix ed-motive defe nse require s the defe ndant to demonstrate by a 1 preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that the same decision would have been made even in the absenc e of the impermissible motivating fa ctor. 9sa m e rea so n, t hi s co urt re jects Sari da ki s’s ar gu m en t tha t the FCRA i ss ue sh ou ldbe cert ifi edto th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. 1) EPA cla im. Sari da ki s d idno t s pe ci fic al ly argu e th atth ere was no same-dec is io n d efen se av ai labl e fo r ret al ia ti on cla im s b ro ug htun de r th e EPA un ti l fi li ng he r po st -tr ia l
m ot io n. Pri orto fil in g t he po st -tr ia l m ot io n, Sa rid ak is rep res en te d t ha t a s am ede ci si on de fen se was app li cab le to he r EPA ret al ia ti oncla im . In h er am en de d
ve rd ic t fo rm s, Sa rid ak is di d n otde le te th e m ix ed -m ot iv e d efen se as t o t he EPA ret al ia ti on cla im . In fa ct , Sari da ki s’s co un se l ex pl ai ne d dur in g t he he ari ng on he r tri al bri ef tha t the EPA qu es ti on s wer e co rrec tl y st at ed . The fi rs t t im e Sar id ak is rai se d the arg um en t ag ai ns t the same-dec is io n d efen se on th e EPA ret al ia ti on cl ai m was i n h er p os t-t ria l m ot io n. Th us , Sari da ki s fa il edto pre se rv e h er o bjec ti on on th is is su e. 2) Ti tl e VII cl ai m. A pl ai nt iff

est ab li sh es a Tit le VII di sc riminat io n v io la ti on by sho win g t ha t hi s o r he r se x was “ a m ot iv at in g fa ct orforany em pl oym en t p ract ic e, ev enth ou gh ot he r fac to rs als o m ot iv at edth e p ract ic e.” The Civ il Rig ht s Actof 1 99 1, 4 2 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (m ). In m ix ed -m ot iv e d is cri m in at io n c as es , a co urt m ay award

10th e p la in ti ff b ot h d ecl arat ory an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f whe n a n e m pl oyer ha s s ho wn th atitwou ldha ve tak enth e sa m e act io n i n t he ab se nc e o f th e il le ga l m ot iv e. 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -5 (g )(2 )(B) . Howev er, a co urt m ay no t awarddam ag es or o rd er the pl ai nt iff hi red , rei ns ta te d, o r pr om ot ed
. Id
. Thi s co urt h as he ldth ata sa m ede ci si on de fen se ap pl ie s t o re ta li at io n c la im s b ro ug htun de r Tit le VII. Pen ni ng to n v. Ci tyof Hun ts vi ll e , 26 1 F .3d12 62 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Sari da ki s ar gu es th atth e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 91 (“ CRA”) li m it edth e ap pl ic at io n o f th e sa m e-d eci si on do ctrin e to cas es in vo lv in g d is cri m in at io n a nd th atth e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Gro ss is co nt ro ll in g. In Gro ss , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t “ th e o rd in ary m ean in g o f th e ADEA’ s re qu ire m en t tha t an em pl oyer to okadve rs e act io n ‘be cau se of’ ag e is th atag e was th e ‘reaso n’ th atth e em pl oyer de ci de d t o a ct .” Gro ss , 55 7 U.S. at__ , 12 9 S . Ct. at23 50 . To pr ov e a di sp arat e-treat m en t cl ai m un de r th e ADEA, a pl ai nt iff m us t p ro ve “ th atag e was th e ‘bu t-f or ’ cau se of t he em

pl oyer’s adv ers e d eci si on .” Id
. Unl ik e Tit le VII, th e bu rd enof p ers ua si on do es no t s hi ft t o t he pa rty defe nd in g an a ll eg edm ix ed
m ot iv e d is cri m in at io n c la im un de r th e ADEA. Se e id
. at _ _, 1 29 S. Ct. at23 48 . Alt ho ug h S ari da ki s ar gu es th at Gro ss is co nt ro ll in g i n thi s ca se forTit le VII, th is co urt h as no t ad dr es se d wh ethe r Gro ss requi res a bu t-f orcau sa ti on st an da rdan d p ro hi bi ts a sa m e-d eci si on de fen se forret al ia ti on cla im s b ro ug ht 11un de r Tit le VII. Not ab ly, th ere i s a c irc ui t s pl itbe twee n the Fif than d S ev en th Ci rcu it s o n t hi s i ss ue . The Fi fth Cir cu ithe ldin Smi th v. Xerox Co rp or at io n th at th e sa m e-d eci si on /m ix ed -m ot iv e d efen se ap pl ie s t o Ti tl e VII ret al ia ti on cas es be cau se th e ADEA andTit le VII are m at eri al ly diff eren t an d Gro ss is no t co nt ro ll in g fo r th e st an da rdof c au sa ti onan d s hi fti ng bu rd en s i n aTit le VII ret al ia ti on cas e. Smi th , 60 2 F .3d32 0, 3 29 –3 0 (5 th Cir . 20 10 ). In Se rw atka v. Roc kwe ll Aut oma ti on , Inc
. , th e Sev en th Cir cu itreco gn iz edth atTit le VII do es no t au th or iz e a m ix ed -m ot iv e ret al ia ti on cla im be cau se th ere i s n o l an gu ag e in th e CRA s ta ti ng th atanadve rs e em pl oym en t d eci si on m ot iv at edin pa rt b y ret al ia ti on bu t al so by one or m or e le gi ti m at e fac to rs co ns ti tu te s a v io la ti on of Ti tl e VII. Se rw atka , 59 1 F .3d95 7, 9 62 –6 3 (7 th Cir . 20 10 ). Howev er, o urde ci si on in Pen ni ng to n is co nt ro ll in g, h ol di ng th ata sam ede ci si on de fen se ap pl ie s t o re ta li at io n c la im s b ro ug htun de r Tit le VII. Se e 26 1 F.3 d a t 1 26 9. Gro ss is no t co nt ro ll in g b ecau se itis anADEA case, an d t he ADEA
an d Ti tl e VII h av e m at eri al ly diff eren t b ur de ns of p ers ua si on . Accor di ng ly, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in gi vi ng a sa m e-d eci si on in stru ct io n o n Sari da ki s’s Ti tl e VII, FCRA, andEPA reta li at io n c la im s. B. Verd ic t f

orm.

12Und er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 1, “ [a] part y who ob jects to an in st ru ct io n o r th e fai lu re t o g iv e anin st ru ct io n m us t d o s o o n t he reco rd , st at in g di st in ct ly the m at te r ob

jecte d t o a ndth e g ro un ds forth e o bjec ti on .” F E D . R. C IV . P. 51 . Object io ns to th e fo rm of i nt erro ga to rie s o n asp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm m us t b e rai se d b efo re the jury is ch arg ed , or t he y are wai ve d. Far le

y v. Na ti on wi de Mut
. In s. Co
. , 19 7 F .3d13 22 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). In Far le y , th e d efen da nt ’s own pr op os edjury in st ru ct io n u se d t he same lan gu ag e to whi ch de fen da ntlat er ob jecte d i n t he ve rd ic t fo rm , andth is co urt h el d t ha t the de fen dantwaiv edit s ob jecti onto th e v erd ic t fo rm in te rro ga to ry . Id
. at 1 33 1. Alt ho ug h S BHD arg ue s t o t he co nt rary, the r eco rdsupp orts th atSari da ki s pr es erv edth is is su e—t ha t the m ix ed -m ot iv e d efen se sh ou ldno t h av e b een av ai labl e to SBHD on Sari da ki s’s re ta li at io n c la im s— be fo re the jury be ga n i ts de li be rat io ns . Duri ng th e ch arg e co nf eren ce o n M arch 16 , 20 10 , Sari da ki s ar gu ed th atSBHD’s st at em en t o f th e sa m e-d eci si on de fen se inth e jury ins tru ct io ns an d
ve rd ic t fo rm

was i nc orrect . Howev er, s he waiv edhe r ri gh t t o a rg ue th atis su e o n ap pe al be cau se sh e co nc ed edth atth e que st io n, as subm it te d t o t he jury, was co rrec t. OnMarc h 1 7, 2 01 0, t he tri al co urt h eardarg um en ts on th e p art ie s’ fin al pr op os edve rd ic t fo rm s. Sar id ak is arg ue d tha t a m ix ed -m ot iv e d efen se sh ou ldno t be all owe d o n t he Tit le VII ret al ia ti on cla im , bu t m ad e n o a rg um en t tha t the 13la ng ua ge us edin SBHD’s pr op os edve rd ic t fo rm forth e EPA ret al ia ti onwas in co rrec t. Fu rth er, s he adm it te d t ha t the ve rd ic t fo rm subm it te d t o t he jury
co rrec tl y st at edth e EPA ret al ia ti on m ix ed -m ot iv e d efen se . [R. 19 9 a t 1 3.] (“ [W] e wen t b ackin to th e v erd ic t fo rm an d c hang edon ly the Tit le VII qu es ti on s. We di dn ’t cha ng e th e EPA qu es ti on s. Th os e are co rrec tl y st at ed .”) Sari da ki s i nv it ed th e al le ge d e rro r by ob

jecti ng to lan gu ag e inth e v erd ic t fo rm th atsh e p rev io us ly
co nc ed edwas c orrect . Thu s, the is su e is waiv edon ap pe al
. IV. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e jud gm en t en te redon th e jury’ s ve rd ic t. AFFIRMED.

14