Free Proposed Jury Instructions - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 1 of 56

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 03-WM-2073 (PAC) ROBERTA PULSE, TONYA HOUSE, Plaintiffs v. THE LARRY H. MILLER GROUP, Defendant

PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Plaintiffs respectfully submit these Proposed Jury Instructions: This Court granted the parties a second extension of time to file the proposed jury instructions, to and including Dec. 21, 2005. The Final Trial Preparation

Conference is Dec. 22, 2005. Attorneys for Defendant did not make themselves available to discuss the jury instructions in detail until 6:20 p.m., Dec. 21, stating earlier in the day that they had to work on other briefing for this case. Counsel for Defendant had agreed to dedicate one hour to discuss these matters, starting at 5:30. When Defense Counsel did not call at the agreed time, to comply with this Court's extended deadline, Plaintiffs counsel prepared Plaintiffs' proposed jury instructions, set forth below, based on the last version received from Defendant's counsel Tuesday night. Plaintiffs ask this Court to allow them to object to jury instructions subsequently filed and/or proposed by Defendant, and to add additional instructions as necessitated.

1

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 2 of 56

INDEX TO JURY INSTRUCTIONS

STOCK & GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Instruction No. 1 ...............Beginning Instructions Instruction No. 2 ...............Judge's Instruction of Claims Instruction No. 3 ..............Stipulated Facts Instruction No. 4 ..............Preliminary Instructions Instruction No. 5. ...............Judicial Questions Instruction No. 6 ................Supplemental Introductory Instructions Instruction No. 7 ................Equal Standing Instruction No. 8 ................Communication to Judge Instruction No. 9 ................Credibility Instruction No. 10 ..............Number of Witnesses Instruction No. 11 ..............Impeachment of Witnesses Instruction No. 12 ..............Deposition Testimony Instruction No. 13 ..............Integrated Employer Instruction No. 14 ..............Title VII ­ Statute Involved Instruction No. 15 ..............Employer - Defined Instruction No. 16 .............Title VII ­ Discrimination Based on Sex Instruction No. 17 .............Motivating Factor ­ Defined Instruction No. 18 .............Pretext Instruction No. 19 .............Constructive Discharge Instruction No. 20 .............Hostile Work Environment - Elements 2

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 3 of 56

Instruction No. 21 ..............Hostile Work Environment Defined Instruction No. 22 .............Sexual Harassment ­ Explained Instruction No. 23 ..............Reasonable Person - Defined Instruction No. 24 .............Unwelcome Conduct - Defined Instruction No. 25 ..............Supervisor - Defined Instruction No. 26 ..............Tangible Employment Action Defined Instruction No. 27 ..............Supervisor ­ Tangible Action Instruction No. 28 ..............Supervisor ­ No Tangible Action Instruction No. 29 ..............Retaliation ­ Statute Involved Instruction No. 30 ..............Protected Activities ­ Participation Defined Instruction No. 31 ..............Protected Activities ­ Opposition Defined Instruction No. 32 .............. Protected Activities ­ Reasonable Good Faith Belief Instruction No. 33 .............. Adverse Action ­ Defined Instruction No. 34 .............. Causation Instruction No. 35 .............. Judicial Instruction ­ Damages Instruction No. 36 .............. Backpay Instruction No. 37 .............. Compensatory Damages Instruction No. 38 .............. Punitive Damages Instruction No. 39 .............. Unanimous Verdict Instruction No. 40 .............. Foreperson

3

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 4 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 1 Members of the jury, we are about to begin the trial of this case. Before the trial begins, however, there are certain instructions you should have to better understand what will be presented to you and how you should conduct yourselves during the trial. The party who brings a lawsuit is called plaintiff. In this action there are two plaintiffs: Roberta Pulse and Tonya House. The party against whom the suit is brought is called defendant. In this action the defendant is The Larry H. Miller Group. Plaintiffs are females who claim that they were discriminated against and then retaliated against after they made reports of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Plaintiffs assert that the retaliation consisted of a campaign of hostility and harassment, as well as disciplinary actions, culminating in the loss of their jobs. As relief, Plaintiffs request back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages. Defendant The Larry H. Miller Group denies that it employed either of the Plaintiffs, and that it unlawfully discriminated against either Plaintiff based on sex. Defendant also denies that it sexually harassed or retaliated against either Plaintiff. Further, Defendant claims that Ms. House voluntarily resigned from her position, that neither Plaintiff suffered damages of any kind, that Defendant did not cause any damage to either Plaintiff, and that Plaintiffs mitigated any damages they claim to have suffered.

4

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 5 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 2 Hostile Work Environment/Harassment Based on Sex. In order for plaintiffs to establish their claims of hostile work environment/harassment based on sex, they have the burden of proving the following essential elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. 2. 3. The conduct complained of was unwelcome: The conduct complained of was offensive; The conduct complained of was sexual in nature or directed at the Plaintiffs because of their sex; The conduct complained of was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of the Plaintiffs' employment by creating an abusive working environment; and

4.

If you find that plaintiffs have failed to prove any of those 4 elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be for defendant, as to the claim of hostile work environment/harassment based on sex. If, on the other hand, you find that plaintiffs have proved the 4 elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be for plaintiffs on this claim. 2. Sex Discrimination. In order for plaintiffs to establish their claims of sex

discrimination, they have the burden of proving the following essential elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The Defendant discriminated against Plaintiffs Roberta Pulse and Tonya House in the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment; and The Plaintiffs' sex was a motivating factor for the Defendant's action.

2.

5

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 6 of 56

If you find that plaintiff have failed to prove any of those 2 elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be for defendant, as to the claim of sex discrimination. If, on the other hand, you find that plaintiffs have proved the 2 elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be for plaintiffs on this claim, 3. Retaliation. In order for each plaintiff to establish her claims of retaliation,

she has the burden of proving the following essential elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. 2. That she engaged in a protected activity under Title VII; She suffered an adverse employment action at the same time as or after that protected activity; and There was a casual connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.

3.

If you find that a plaintiff has failed to prove any of those 3 elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be for defendant, as to the claim of retaliation brought by that Plaintiff against Defendant. If, on the other hand, you find that a plaintiff has proven the 3 elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be for that Plaintiff on the claim. of retaliation brought by that Plaintiff against the Defendant. Objection by Defendant: _________________________________

6

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 7 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 3 STIPULATED FACTS The parties to this lawsuit have agreed to certain facts which you must treat as having been proved. Those facts are: 1. 2. Plaintiff Roberta Pulse and Plaintiff Tonya House are females. The Handbook also contains a policy prohibiting retaliation. "It is the

policy of this company not to retaliate against an employee regarding a charge of employment discrimination or harassment. Protection against employer retaliation applies not only to the complaining employee, but to all other employees who might participate in any investigation. This

protection applies regardless of the validity of the complaining employee's charge." 3. The Handbook provides that "[t]his company prohibits all forms of discrimination or harassment against any individual based on gender . . . in any employment condition. Violations of this policy will be treated as disciplinary matters. `Harassment' includes, but is not limited to,

inappropriate graphic, verbal, or physical conduct relating to the categories listed above." 4. It further provides that "it is the policy of this company to prohibit the sexual harassment of any employee or client, male or female, by another employee or client. Prohibited actions include . . . creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment by such conduct."

7

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 8 of 56

5.

The Handbook also provides that "it is the policy of the company not to retaliate against any employee regarding a charge of employment discrimination or harassment. Protection against employer retaliation

applies not only to the complaining employee, but to all other employees who might participate in any investigation. This protection applies

regardless of the validity of the complaining employee's charge."

8

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 9 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 4 PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS Now, I will give you some preliminary instructions to guide you in your participation in the trial. Duty of Jury It will be your duty to find from the evidence what the facts are. You, and you alone, are the judges of the facts. You will then have to apply to those facts the law as I, the court, will give it to you. You must follow that law whether you agree with it or not. Nothing I may say or do during the course of the trial is intended to indicate, or should be taken by you as indicating, what your verdict should be. Evidence The evidence from which you will find the facts will consist of the testimony of witnesses, documents and other things received into the record as exhibits, and any facts the lawyers agree or stipulate to, or that I may instruct you to find. Generally, there are two kinds of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony of an eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is proof of facts from which you may infer or conclude that other facts exist. You may consider both kinds of evidence and determine how much weight to give it. It will be up to you to decide which witnesses to believe, which witnesses not to believe, and how much of any witness's testimony to accept or reject. I will give you some guidelines for determining the credibility of witnesses at the end of the case.

9

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 10 of 56

Judge the evidence just like any reasonable and careful person would treat an important question that must be resolved by examining facts, opinions and other evidence. Use your good sense in considering and evaluating the evidence. Give it a reasonable and fair interpretation in light of your life experiences and knowledge of people and their tendencies. You are not limited solely to the admitted evidence itself as you may also make inferences and reach conclusions that reason and common sense lead you to draw from that evidence. Certain things are not evidence and must not be considered by you. I will list them for you now: 1. Statements, arguments, and questions by lawyers are not evidence. 2. Objections to questions are not evidence. Lawyers have an obligation to their clients to make an objection when they believe evidence being offered is improper under the rules of evidence. You should not be influenced by the objection or by my ruling on it. If the objection is sustained, ignore the question. If it is overruled, treat the answer like any other. If you are instructed that some item of evidence is received for a limited purpose only, you must follow that instruction. 3. Testimony that I have excluded or told you to disregard is not evidence and must not be considered. 4. Anything you may have seen or heard outside the courtroom is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence presented here in the courtroom. Burden of Proof

10

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 11 of 56

This is a civil case. Each plaintiff has the burden of proving her case by what is called the preponderance of the evidence. That means the plaintiff has to produce evidence which, considered in the light of all the facts, leads you to believe that what she claims is more likely true than not. To put it differently, as to each plaintiff, if you were to put that plaintiff's and defendant's evidence on opposite sides of the scales, that plaintiff would have to make the scales tip somewhat on her side. If either plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the verdict concerning that plaintiff must be for defendant. Those of you who have sat on criminal cases will have heard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That requirement does not apply to a civil case, and you should therefore put it out of your mind. Conduct by the Jury Now, a few words about your conduct as jurors. First, I instruct you that during the trial you are not to discuss the case with anyone, including yourselves and your families, or permit anyone to discuss it with you. Until you retire to the jury room at the end of the case to deliberate on your verdict, you simply are not to talk about this case. Should anyone try to talk to you about it, bring it to my attention promptly. Second, do not read or listen to anything touching on this case in any way. Should anyone try to give you anything about this case, or if you inadvertently hear or see something about it, bring it to my attention promptly. Third, do not research or investigate the case on your own.

11

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 12 of 56

Finally, do not form any opinion until all the evidence is in. Keep an open mind until you start your deliberation at the end of the case. If you wish, you may take notes to help your recollection. If you do, leave them in the jury room when you leave at night. And remember that they are for your own personal use--they are not to be given or read to anyone else. Course of the Trial The trial will now begin. First, each side may make an opening statement. An opening statement is neither evidence nor argument; it is an outline of what that party intends to prove, offered to help you follow the evidence. Next, plaintiffs will present their witnesses, and defendant may cross-examine them. Then defendant will present its witnesses, and plaintiffs may cross-examine

them. Plaintiffs then may have a final opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, again subject to the defendant's cross examination. After that, the attorneys will make their closing arguments to summarize and interpret the evidence for you. Those will be followed by further instructions on the law. You will then retire to deliberate on your verdict.

12

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 13 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 5 JUDICIAL QUESTIONS During the course of a trial, I may occasionally ask questions of a witness, in order to bring out facts not then fully covered in the testimony. Please do not assume that I hold any opinion on the matters to which my questions may have related. Remember that you, as jurors, are at liberty to disregard all comments of the Court in arriving at your own findings as to the facts.

Authority: Devitt, Blackmar & Wolff, 70.13 (4th Ed.)

13

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 14 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 6 SUPPLEMENTAL INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTIONS MEMBERS OF THE JURY: Now that you have heard the evidence and the argument, it becomes my duty to supplement the introductory instructions on the law governing this case. It is your duty as jurors to follow the law as I state it. You will then apply the law to the facts as you find them from the evidence. You are not to single out one instruction alone as stating the law, but must consider the introductory and these instructions as a whole. You are not to be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law stated by me. It would be a violation of your oath to base your verdict on anything other than the law as presented in these instructions and the facts as you find them. Counsel may properly refer to some of the governing rules of law in their arguments. If, however, there is any difference between the law as stated by counsel and that stated by me in these instructions, you are governed by my instructions. As members of the jury, you are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts. You judge the evidence. You determine what evidence to believe. You resolve conflicts in the testimony. Nothing I say in these instructions is to be taken as an indication that I have any opinion about the facts of the case, or what that opinion is. It is not my function to determine the facts; it is yours. If any reference to evidence by counsel or me is not consistent with your own recollection of that evidence it is your recollection that controls.

14

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 15 of 56

You must perform your duties as jurors without bias or prejudice as to any party. The law does not permit you to be governed by sympathy, prejudice or public opinion. The court and the parties expect that you will carefully and impartially consider all the evidence, follow the law as it has been given to you, and reach a just verdict, regardless of the consequences.

15

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 16 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 7 EQUAL STANDING This case should be considered and decided by you as an action between persons of equal standing in the community, of equal worth, and holding the same or similar stations of life. Plaintiffs and the Defendant are entitled to the same fair trial at your hands. All stand equal before the law, and are to be dealt with as equals in a court of justice.

Authority: See Devitt, Blackmar & Wolff, 71.04 (4th Ed.)

16

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 17 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 8 COMMUNICATION TO JUDGE I do not invite communications from you, but if it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with the court, you may send a note by the court security officer, signed by your foreperson or by one or more members of the jury. No member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with the court by any means other than a signed writing, and the court will never communicate with any member of the jury on any subject touching the merits of the case other than in writing, or orally here in open court. Upon receipt of a note from you, I will need to convene a meeting with counsel to discuss your questions or request. It may well take considerable time and effort to respond. You will note from the oath about to be taken by the court security officer that he or she, as well as all other persons, are forbidden to communicate in any way or manner with any member of the jury on any subject touching the merits of the case. Let me know immediately if anyone attempts any such communication. Bear in mind also that you are never to reveal to any person--not even to the court-- how the jury stands, numerically or otherwise, on the questions before you, until after you have reached a unanimous verdict.

17

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 18 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 9 CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. You should take into consideration their means of knowledge, strength of memory and opportunities for observation; the reasonableness or unreasonableness of their testimony; the consistency or lack of consistency in their testimony; their motives, their intelligence; their ability to observe the matters about which they have testified; whether their testimony has been contradicted or supported by other evidence; their bias, prejudice or interests, if any; their manner or demeanor upon the witness stand; and all other facts and circumstances shown by the evidence which affect the credibility of the witnesses. Based on these considerations, you may believe all, part or none of the testimony of a witness and you may give the testimony such weight, if any, as you think it deserves.

18

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 19 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 10 NUMBER OF WITNESSES IRRELEVANT You should not resolve factual issues in the case solely by adding up the number of witnesses who testify on each side of a certain issue. If the jurors believe the

testimony of a single witness who testifies about a disputed event, such testimony is enough for you to resolve the factual dispute in accordance with this single witness's version of the event, even though a number of witnesses may have testified to the contrary. The test is not which side brings the greater number of witnesses, or presents the greater quantity of evidence; the test, rather, is which witness or witnesses, and which evidence, appeals to your minds as being the most accurate, believable, and otherwise trustworthy. A witness may be discredited or impeached by contradictory evidence or by evidence that at some other time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, that is inconsistent with the witness' present testimony. If you believe any witness has been impeached and thus discredited, you may give the testimony of that witness such credibility, if any, you think it deserves. If a witness is shown to have knowingly testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness' other testimony and you may reject all of the testimony of that witness or give it such credibility as you think it deserves.

19

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 20 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 11 IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESS A witness may be discredited or impeached by contradictory evidence, or by evidence that at some other time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, which is inconsistent with the witness's present testimony. If you believe any witness has been impeached and thus discredited, it is your exclusive province to give the testimony of that witness such credibility, if any, as you may think it deserves. If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely concerning any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness's testimony in other particulars and you may reject part or all of the testimony of that witness or give it such weight as you may think it deserves.

20

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 21 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 12 DEPOSITION TESTIMONY AS EVIDENCE Certain testimony has been read into evidence from a deposition. Some deposition testimony was introduced into evidence through videotape. A deposition is testimony taken under oath before the trial and preserved in writing. You are to

consider that testimony as if it had been given by the witness from the witness stand.

CJI ­ Civ. 3:9 (4th ed.)

21

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 22 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO 13 INTEGRATED EMPLOYER A company may act only through natural persons as its agents or employees. In general, any agents or employees of a company may bind the company by their acts and declarations made while acting within the scope of their authority delegated to them by the company or within the scope of their duties as employees of the company. The Larry H. Miller Group can be held legally responsible for the discriminatory and retaliatory actions occurring the Denver dealerships (Larry H. Miller Used Car Superstore and Larry Miller Toyota) if Plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of the evidence that these entities had (1) interrelation of operations; (2) centralized control over labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership or financial control. All four factors, however, are not necessary for single-employer status. Rather, the appropriate inquiry is "What entity made the final decisions regarding employment matters related to the person claiming discrimination? " The Larry H. Miller Group also can be held legally responsible for the discriminatory and retaliatory actions occurring the Denver dealerships (Larry H. Miller Used Car Superstore and Larry Miller Toyota) if Plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of the evidence that The Larry H. Miller Group exercised a significant degree of control over the acts giving rise to the claim of wrongdoing, Objected to by Knowlton v. Teltrust, 189 F.3d 1177, 1185 (10th Cir. 1995); Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1362-3 (10th Cir. 1993) Defendant objects: _________________ 22

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 23 of 56

23

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 24 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 14 TITLE VII ­ STATUTE INVOLVED

Each Plaintiff's claims of discrimination based on sex, sexual harassment and retaliation are brought under a federal law known as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, often called Title VII. Title VII makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of such individual's sex.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005) (modified regarding the facts presented in this case), citing: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-2.

24

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 25 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 15 EMPLOYER - DEFINED If an employer does not have 15 employees, the minimum number of employees to meet the statutory requirement, it is still covered if it is part of an "integrated enterprise" that, overall, meets the requirement. An integrated enterprise is one in which the operations of two or more employers are considered so intertwined that they can be considered the single employer of the charging party. The separate entities that form an integrated enterprise are treated as a single employer for purposes of both coverage and liability. If a charge is filed against one of the entities, relief can be obtained from any of the entities that form part of the integrated enterprise.

The factors to be considered in determining whether separate entities should be treated as an integrated enterprise are:

The degree of interrelation between the operations Sharing of management services such as check writing, preparation of mutual policy manuals, contract negotiations, and completion of business licenses Sharing of payroll and insurance programs Sharing of services of managers and personnel Sharing use of office space, equipment, and storage Operating the entities as a single unit The degree to which the entities share common management Whether the same individuals manage or supervise the different entities Whether the entities have common officers and boards of directors Centralized control of labor relations

25

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 26 of 56

Whether there is a centralized source of authority for development of personnel policy Whether one entity maintains personnel records and screens and tests applicants for employment Whether the entities share a personnel (human resources) department and whether inter-company transfers and promotions of personnel are common Whether the same persons make the employment decisions for both entities The degree of common ownership or financial control over the entities Whether the same person or persons own or control the different entities Whether the same persons serve as officers and/or directors of the different entities Whether one company owns the majority or all of the shares of the other company. The purpose of these factors is to establish the degree of control exercised by one entity over the operation of another entity. All of the factors should be considered in assessing whether separate entities constitute an integrated enterprise, but it is not necessary that all factors be present, nor is the presence of any single factor dispositive. The primary focus should be on centralized control of labor relations. It should be noted that while this issue often arises where there is a parent-subsidiary relationship, a parent-subsidiary relationship is not required for two companies to be considered an integrated enterprise

Authority: 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e(b); EEOC Compliance Manual, §2-III(b)(3)(a); Knowlton v. Teltrust, 189 F.3d 1177, 1185 (10th Cir. 1995); Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1362-3 (10th Cir. 1993)

26

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 27 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 16 TITLE VII ­ DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX In order for each Plaintiff to establish her claim for discrimination against the Defendant based on sex under Title VII, she must prove the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. 2.

The Defendant took adverse employment actions against her; and The Plaintiff's sex was a motivating factor for the Defendant's actions.

If you find that a Plaintiff has failed to prove either or both of these propositions by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find against that Plaintiff on her discrimination claim and in favor of the Defendant. If, on the other hand, you find that that Plaintiff has proved both propositions by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find in that Plaintiff's favor and against Defendant. Each Plaintiff must prove each element to prove that Defendant unlawfully discriminated against her based on sex.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: Elmore v. Capstan, Inc., 58 F.3d 525, 529 (10th Cir. 1995). See also Texas Dept. of Comm. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981), citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 804-05 (1973).

27

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 28 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 17 MOTIVATING FACTOR ­ DEFINED Each Plaintiff is not required to prove that her sex was the sole or exclusive motivating factor for the Defendant's decision. Each Plaintiff must prove, however, that sex was a motivating factor. The term "motivating factor" means a consideration that moved Defendant toward its decision, or a factor that played a part in the employment decision. In determining whether sex was a "motivating factor" in the Defendant's decision to take any adverse employment action, you may consider any statements made or acts done or admitted by the Defendant, and all other facts and circumstances in evidence indicating state of mind. An improper motive, if it exists, is seldom directly admitted and may or may not be inferred from the existence of other facts. Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: Federal Employment Jury Instructions, McNamara & Southerland, Sec. 1:420 Stover v. Martinez, 382 F.3d 1064, 1076 (10th Cir. 2004); James v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 21 F.3d 989, 992 (10th Cir. 1994); Texas Dept. of Comm. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981), citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 804-05 (1973). DEFENDANT OBJECTS: _________________________ See Stover v. Martinez, 382 F.3d 1064, 1076 (10th Cir. 2004); Hampton v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 248 F.3d 1091, 1111 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1131 (2002); McKenzie v. Renberg's Inc., 94 F.3d 1478, 1483 (10th Cir. 1996); James v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 21 F.3d 989, 992 (10th Cir. 1994); and Perrell v. Financeamerica Corp., 726 F.2nd 654, 656 (10th Cir. 1984) (Age must "make a difference" in the sense that "but for" the factor of age discrimination, the employee would not have been adversely affected).

28

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 29 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 18 PRETEXT Defendant claims that there were legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for any alleged employment actions taken against Plaintiffs. Each Plaintiff, on the other hand, claims that the asserted reasons are a mere pretext to cover up a discriminatory motive. Each Plaintiff may show that the stated reasons for Defendant's decisions were pretextual in several ways:

1.

Evidence that the stated reasons for its decisions were false;

2. Evidence that the Defendant acted contrary to a written company policy prescribing the action to be taken by the Defendant under the circumstances; or 3. Evidence that the Defendant acted contrary to an unwritten policy or contrary to Defendant's established practice when it allegedly made [describe adverse employment decision] affecting the Plaintiff. In determining whether the stated reasons for any decision are genuine or pretextual, you must examine the facts as they appeared to the person making the employment decision at the time the decision was made.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: Townsend v. Lumbermen Mut. Cas. Company, 294 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2002); Kendrick v. Penske Transportation Services, Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1230 (10th Cir. 2000); Selenke v. Medical Imaging of Colorado, Inc., 248 F.3d 1249, 1261 (10th Cir. 2001) (pretext must be resolved by reference to the person making the decision at the time the decision is made). DEFENDANT OBJECTS 29

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 30 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 19 CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE To prove her claim of constructive discharge, Plaintiff Tonya House must show that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that her resignation qualified as a fitting response.

Authority: Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 124 S. Ct. 2342, 2350 (2004); DEFENDANT OBJECTS:

30

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 31 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 20 HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ­ ELEMENTS Each of the Plaintiffs has alleged that she was were subjected to a hostile work environment based upon sex in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In order to prove her claim of hostile work environment, each Plaintiff must prove each of the following:

1. 2. 3.

The conduct complained of was unwelcome; The conduct complained of was offensive; The conduct complained of was sexual in nature or directed at her because of her sex; and The conduct complained of was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment by creating an abusive working environment;

4.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: 29 C.F.R. §1604.11; Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998); Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 68 (1986); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998); Harrison v. Eddy Potash, Inc., 248 F.3d 1014, 1022 (10th Cir. 2001).

31

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 32 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 21 HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ­ DEFINED In determining whether a work environment is hostile, you may consider some or all of the following factors: · · · · · · · · ·

The nature and severity of the conduct; Whether the conduct complained of was humiliating; Whether the conduct complained of was repeated or a single incident; Whether the conduct complained of was by a co-worker or a supervisor; The effect of the conduct on the plaintiff's mental or emotional state; Whether others joined in the conduct; Whether the conduct was directed at more than one person; The context in which the conduct occurred; Whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1988); Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993); O'Shea v. Yellow Tech. Servs., 185 F.3d 1093, 1097-98 (10th Cir. 1999); Penry v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 155 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir. 1998).

32

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 33 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 22 SEXUAL HARASSMENT - EXPLANATION Sexual harassment can, but need not, take the form of sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. It is not necessary that the acts at issue have clear sexual overtones; rather any harassment directed at an employee because of that employee's gender is sexual harassment. Nevertheless, the offensive conduct must be so severe and pervasive that it has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the employee's work performance and of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

SOURCE: Christopher v. National Education Association, http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E340D76D1D4D2F3E882570700053 DE5A/$file/0435029.pdf?openelement (11th Cir. 1005). See also Federal Employment Jury Instructions, McNamara and Southerland, § 1:830, citing Carter v. Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4010 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) References: Sexual harassment resulting in wrongful discharge, 20 Am. Jur. 2d Proof of Facts 335.

33

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 34 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 23 REASONABLE PERSON ­ DEFINED In determining whether a hostile work environment existed, you must consider the evidence from the perspective of a reasonable person. This is an objective

standard, and you must look at the evidence from the perspective of a reasonable person's reaction to a similar environment under similar circumstances.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17, 21-23 (1993); Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998); Andrews v. Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1483 (3d Cir. 1990) (An "objective standard protects the employer from the `hypersensitive' employee.")

34

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 35 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 24 UNWELCOME CONDUCT ­ DEFINED "Unwelcome conduct" means conduct that was not solicited or encouraged by a plaintiff and that was regarded as undesirable by that plaintiff.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: See Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 68 (1986).

35

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 36 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 25 SUPERVISOR ­ DEFINED Regardless of an employee's title, a "supervisor" is an employee with authority to hire, fire, discipline, promote, transfer, or evaluate the performance of other employees, or to effectively recommend such actions.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: See Sauers v. Salt Lake County, 1 F.3d 1122, 1125 (10th Cir. 1993); Haynes v. Williams, 88 F.3d 898, 899 (10th Cir. 1996) (a supervisor is an individual who serves in a supervisory position and exercises significant control over the plaintiff's hiring, firing or conditions of employment); Parkins v. Civil Constructors of Illinois, 163 F.3d 1027, 1034 (7th Cir. 1998) (The essence of supervisory status is the "power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline an employee").

36

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 37 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 26 TANGIBLE EMPLOYMENT ACTION ­ DEFINED A "tangible employment action" means a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, layoff, failure to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in wages or benefits. A tangible employment action is not limited to monetary losses of benefits or wages, but it must be more than a mere inconvenience or alteration of job responsibility.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761 (1998) (conduct is a tangible employment action if it "constitutes a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failure to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits").

37

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 38 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 27 SUPERVISOR HARASSMENT RESULTING IN TANGIBLE EMPLOYMENT ACTION If you find that a Plaintiff was sexually harassed by her supervisor and that the harassment resulted in a tangible employment action, then you must find Defendant liable for the harassment. This is true regardless of the existence of a policy against sexual harassment, and remedial actions taken by the employer, the number of complaints made by the employee, and the severity of the harassment.

FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS, McNamara & Southerland, §1:910, from Faragher v City of Boca Raton, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 2292-93 (1998); Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. 257, 265 (1998).

38

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 39 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 28 SUPERVISOR HARASSMENT NOT RESULTING IN TANGIBLE EMPLOYMENT ACTION If you find that the alleged harasser had the power to effect a tangible employment action but that no tangible employment action was actually taken against a Plaintiff, then in order to find for a Plaintiff, you must determine that the sexually harassing conduct was severe or pervasive. To determine whether conduct was severe or pervasive, you must look to the totality of the circumstances. The types of factors you should take into account: 1. 2. 3. 4. the frequency of the conduct the severity of the conduct whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating; and whether it unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff's job performance.

This list is not exhaustive , and there is no mathematically precise test. The more severe the harassing behavior, the less pervasive it needs to be in order for Defendant to be liable for sex discrimination. You must decide, considering all of the circumstances, whether Defendant's conduct was so severe and pervasive that it would have interfered with a reasonable employee's work performance or the conditions of her employment, and that Plaintiff did, in fact, perceive it to be abusive. The intent or perception of the person committing the acts, or failures to act, or intent or perception of any other person, is irrelevant.

39

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 40 of 56

Again, a finding of "severe" or "pervasive" is not required to find Defendant liable for sexual harassment if you find that a tangible employment action was taken against a Plaintiff.

FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS, McNamara & Southerland, §1:920, from Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 367 (1992); Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872-79 (9th Cir. 1991); Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 118 S.Ct. 998 (1998); Faragher v City of Boca Raton, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 2292-93 (1998); Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. 257, 265 (1998).

40

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 41 of 56

41

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 42 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 29 RETALIATION ­ STATUTE INVOLVED Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against a person because that person has engaged in a protected activity under Title VII. To establish her claim of retaliation, each Plaintiff must prove: 1. 2. That she engaged in a protected activity under Title VII; That she suffered an adverse employment action at the same time as or after that protected activity; and There was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.

3.

If you find that a Plaintiff has proven each of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find for her and against Defendant on this claim. If, on the other hand, you find that a Plaintiff has failed to prove any one or more of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find against her on this claim and in favor of Defendant.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (Title VII); 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) (ADEA); 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) (ADA). See also Gunnell v. Utah Valley State College, 152 F.3d 1253, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1998); Cole v. Ruidoso Mun. Schools, 43 F.3d 1373, 1381 (10th Cir. 1994). The Tenth Circuit has held that the prima facie elements of a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 are identical to those for a retaliation claim under Title VII. See Roberts v. Roadway Express, 149 F.3d 1098, 1103 & 1103 n.1 (10th Cir. 1998). DEFENDANT OBJECTS

42

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 43 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 30 PROTECTED ACTIVITIES ­ PARTICIPATION ­ DEFINED Protected activities include making a charge of discrimination, harassment or retaliation, or testifying, assisting or otherwise participating in any manner in her own or someone else's charge of discrimination, harassment or retaliation, investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII. In this case, each Plaintiff asserts that she engaged in the following protected activities: notifying management about the harassing conduct of Mark Dundun, Tony Schnurr, and Bob Cockerham, filing Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC, and filing this lawsuit. Even informal complaints to management are sufficient to establish that Plaintiffs engaged in protected activities. Plaintiffs must prove that they actually participated in a protected activity, but Plaintiffs do not have to prove that the underlying charge, investigation, proceeding or hearing was successful.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (Title VII); 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) (ADEA); 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) (ADA). See also Robbins v. Jefferson County School District, 186 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 1999), abrogated on other grounds, National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002); Jeffries v. State of Kansas, 147 F.3d 1220, 1231 (10th Cir. 1998); Sauers v. Salt Lake County, 1 F.3d 1122, 1128 (10th Cir. 1993). DEFENDANT OBJECTS 43

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 44 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 31 PROTECTED ACTIVITIES ­ OPPOSITION ­ DEFINED Protected activities include opposing a practice made unlawful by Title VII, such as expressing a reasonable good faith belief that the employer has engaged in a discriminatory practice. In this case, each Plaintiff asserts that she engaged in protected activities. Plaintiffs must prove they engaged in these activities to oppose a practice made unlawful by the statute.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (Title VII); 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) (ADEA); 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) (ADA). See also, Shinwari v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 215 F.3d 1337, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 12816, *15 (10th Cir. June 8, 2000) , overruled on other grounds, Crumpacker v. Kan. Dept. of Human Resources, 338 F.3d 1163, 1171 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 269 (2001)); Archuleta v. Colorado Department of Institutions, 936 F.2d 483, 487 (10th Circ. 1991); Love v. Re/Max, 738 F.2d 383, 385 (10th Cir. 1984). DEFENDANT OBJECTS

44

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 45 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 32 PROTECTED ACTIVITIES ­ OPPOSITION (Mistaken But Reasonable Good Faith Belief) A Plaintiff's activities in opposing a practice she believed is unlawful under Title VII is protected activity even though it is based on a mistaken but reasonable good faith belief that Title VII has been violated.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: Crumpacker v. Kan. Dept. of Human Resources, 338 F.3d 1163, 1171-72 (10th Cir. Feb. 1, 2003) (citing Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 269 (2001)). DEFENDANT OBJECTS

45

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 46 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 33 ADVERSE ACTION ­ DEFINED An "adverse action" is one that alters the employee's terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or otherwise adversely affects his or her status as an employee. An adverse action, however, does not include a mere inconvenience or personality conflict in the workplace. A workplace that is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Plaintiffs' employment constitutes an adverse employment action.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (adopting definitions in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)); Amro v. Boeing Co., 232 F.3d 790, 798 (10th Cir. 2000); Heno v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 208 F. 3d 847, 857 (10th Cir. 2000). Gunnell v. Utah Valley State College, http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-4155.htm (10th Cir. 1998). DEFENDANT OBJECTS

46

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 47 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 34 CAUSATION A Plaintiff may establish a causal connection between the protected activity and the allegedly adverse action of an employer: 1. By demonstrating direct evidence that retaliation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision to take an adverse action, or By demonstrating circumstances raising an inference that retaliation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision to take an adverse action, such as (a) (b) protected conduct closely followed by an adverse action, or proof of any employer efforts to conceal alleged retaliatory conduct.

2.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001); Wells v. Colorado Dep't of Transp., 325 F.3d 1205, 1218 (10th Cir. 2003); O'Neal v. Ferguson Construction Co., 237 F.3d 1248, 1253 (10th Cir. 2001); Pastran v. K-Mart Corp., 210 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2000); Burrus v. United Tele. Co., 683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 (1982). DEFENDANT OBJECTS

47

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 48 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 35 I will now instruct you on the proper measure of damages, if any, to be recovered by each Plaintiff should you find in her favor on one or more of her claims. The fact that I will instruct you on the proper measure of damages should not be considered as an indication of any view of mine as to which party is entitled to your verdict. These instructions are given only for your guidance, in the event that you should find in favor of one or both of the Plainitffs on the question of liability in accordance with the other instructions. If you should find for Defendant, these instructions on damages should be disregarded. In determining the amount of damages that you decide to award to each Plaintiff, if any, you should be guided by dispassionate common sense. You must use sound discretion in fixing an award of damages, drawing reasonable inferences from the facts in evidence. You may not award damages based on sympathy or speculation. On the other hand, the law does not require that each Plaintiff prove the amount of her losses with mathematical precision, but only with as much definiteness and accuracy as circumstances permit.

48

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 49 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 36 BACK PAY

If you find that the Defendant unlawfully discriminated against a Plaintiff on the basis of sex, sexually harassed her, or retaliated against her for engaging in protected activities, then you must determine the amount of back pay that that Plaintiff proved was caused by the Defendant's wrongful conduct. In determining back pay, you must make several calculations. Plaintiff Pulse. If you find that Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff Pulse on the basis of sex, sexually harassed her, or retaliated against her for engaging in protected activities: First calculate the amount of pay and bonuses that she would have earned from the date of her termination until today's date had she not been terminated. Then calculate and add the value of the employee benefits (health, life and dental insurance, vacation leave, etc.) that Plaintiff Pulse would have received from the date of that termination until the date of trial had she not been terminated. Then, subtract from this sum the amount of pay and benefits that she actually earned from other employment during this time. Plaintiff House. If you find that Defendant unlawfully discriminated against

Plaintiff House on the basis of sex, sexually harassed her, or retaliated against her for engaging in protected activities:

49

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 50 of 56

First, calculate the amount of pay and bonuses that Plaintiff House would have earned from the date of her alleged constructive discharge until today's date had she not been constructively discharged. Then calculate and add the value of the employee benefits (health, life and dental insurance, vacation leave, etc.) that Ms. House would have received from the date of her alleged constructive discharge until the date of trial had she not been constructively discharged. Then, subtract from this sum the amount of pay and benefits that Plaintiff House actually earned from other employment during this time.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: Federal Employment Jury Instructions, § 1:1260; Model Jury Instructions (Civil) Eighth Circuit § 5.02 (1998).

50

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 51 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 37 COMPENSATORY DAMAGES If you find that the Defendant unlawfully discriminated against a Plaintiff based on sex, sexually harassed her or retaliated against her on the basis of her protected activity, then you must determine an amount that is fair compensation for that Plaintiff's losses. You may award compensatory damages for injuries that she proved were

caused by the Defendant's wrongful conduct. The damages that you award must be fair compensation, no more and no less. You may award damages for any emotional distress, pain, suffering, inconvenience or mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation that that Plaintiff experienced as a consequence of the wrongful conduct. No evidence of monetary value of such intangible things as pain and suffering has been, or need be, introduced into evidence. There is no exact standard for setting the compensation to be awarded for these elements of damages. Any award you make should be fair in light of the evidence presented at trial. You may also reimburse that Plaintiff for the value of other out-of-pocket losses or expenses, including expenses for past medical bills, expenses for counseling or mental health care, moving expenses, employment search expenses, and any other quantifiable out-of-pocket expenses sought by her. In determining the amount of any damages that you decide to award, you should be guided by dispassionate common sense. You must use sound discretion in making an award of damages, drawing reasonable inferences from the facts in evidence. You

51

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 52 of 56

may not award damages based on speculation or guesswork. On the other hand, the law does not require that the Plaintiff prove the amount of her losses with mathematical precision, but only with as much definiteness and accuracy as circumstances permit.

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

52

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 53 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 38 PUNITIVE DAMAGES If you find that the Defendant intentionally discriminated, sexually harassed or retaliated against a Plaintiff, the law allows, but does not require, an award of punitive damages to that Plaintiff. The purpose of an award of punitive damages is to punish a wrongdoer for misconduct, and also to provide a warning to others. You may award to that Plaintiff punitive damages if you find that the Defendant engaged in discrimination with malice or with reckless indifference to the right of that Plaintiff to be free from such intentional discrimination. In order to find the Defendant liable for punitive damages, you must find that the Defendant discriminated against that Plaintiff in the face of a perceived risk that its actions would violate federal law. In deciding the amount of punitive damages, you may consider the following: 1. 2. The offensiveness of the conduct; The amount needed, considering the Defendant's financial condition, to prevent the conduct from being repeated; and Whether the amount of punitive damages bears a reasonable relationship to the actual damages awarded. You may infer `malice' or `reckless indifference' on the part of the Defendant where a manager responsible for setting or enforcing policy in the area of discrimination did not respond to complaints, despite knowledge of serious harassment."

3.

53

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 54 of 56

Authority: Model Employment Law Jury Instructions, Federal Faculty of Advocates, Ad Hoc Committee (Nov. 1, 2005), citing: 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1); Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n., 527 U.S. 526 (1999); Deters v. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., 202 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2000). DEFENDANT OBJECTS

54

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 55 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 39 The verdict must be unanimous and represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree. It is your duty, as jurors, to consult with one another, and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. You must each decide the claim of each Plaintiff for yourself, but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence in the case with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your own views, and change your opinion, if convinced it is erroneous. But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of evidence, solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Remember at all times that you are not partisans. You are judges ­ judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case.

55

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 196

Filed 12/21/2005

Page 56 of 56

INSTRUCTION NO. 40 Upon retiring to the jury room, you shall select one of your number to act as your foreperson. The foreperson will preside over your deliberations and be your

spokesperson here in court. Verdict forms have been prepared for your convenience to take to the jury room. You will note that the forms include a number of interrogatories or questions which call for a "yes" or "no" answer. The answer to each question must be the

unanimous answer of the jury. Your foreperson will write the unanimous answer of the jury in the space provided for each response. As you will note from the wording of the questions, it may not be necessary to consider or answer every question. When you have completed the verdict form, the foreperson will sign and date the form, which should be brought to the courtroom when you return.

56