Opinion ID: 168154
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: W aiver of the mixed-motive defense

Text: Johnson argues that the City waived the mixed-motive defense because it was not affirmatively presented in the pretrial order, no witnesses were designated to testify about it, and the City offered no evidence to support it. 5 The City responds that Johnson did not raise this waiver argument in the district court and is therefore barred from raising it on appeal. W e agree with the City. W e review issues raised for the first time on appeal only “in the most unusual circumstances,” such as “where manifest injustice would result.” Sm ith v. Rogers Galvanizing Co., 128 F.3d 1380, 1386 (10th Cir. 1997) (quotations omitted). Nothing in the record shows that Johnson raised waiver in the district court. W e see no manifest injustice in declining to review the issue because, as noted above, Johnson’s counsel argued in support of an instruction on the mixed-motive defense and, as discussed below, sufficient evidence supported the defense. 5 Johnson also contends that the City waived the mixed-motive defense because it did not request Instruction No. 3. The City’s actions w ith regard to Instruction No. 3 are not germane to the waiver issue because that instruction does not set forth the defense. -13-