WPCyz (cf#/C;y,4y ja m11X}`bgMVG%* NqszxR/آ`ѕ))2]8#/i8,>CálW;wPfJnR&hح}L@#=)eIha>(/{T/답؉IS!Ee,ӫ%AvwyҨ73˫eΥ=sZ3///[&)* ,Y /n8y k |Lϙ :b&E"`=Hn<8^NDqF;,]Y$qeWg 7Bq 0 M>~pubcDy[r=?G^yEI:H;e#5,52e,1AXVT a}89JeE-#B[:"wsG25SbK0 Ĕ-Lٙ#UF % 0: ^ 9 wE 4I ] l mn 0D 0 nT N  UN E[f]a_Ns^uUBb|  1b 72 1u! 72 0c+?# 0U & 0^& 0G' 0-( 0) B) 0 * 0* 0+ 0, 0Co- 0- 0. 0]/ 0.0 00 01 02 0T3 0@4 0T4 0(5 05 06 07 0Z8 09 09 00: 0<: 0 ; 0>; 0v< 0`|< 0`< 0`<= 0`= 0`= 08\> 0> 02f? 0? 0:@ 0Y@ 0_'A 0 A 0jB 0C B*~E D/E D+E 0F D/G 0G 06H 0H 0:I 0^I 0<YJ 0NJU6JU>KU*WKKKb^QqS 0w1X 0X2YHY 1 [ 72[[[^ 1^ 72i__eeLhU8o(ppppppppp;>vHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularX($USUS.,ț/s M/s:i+003|x:U(#$  0  (v:2hx$ !USUS.,    =XXdd=    0  <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@& e vr Z6Times New Roman RegularTABLE AL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- - AdjuntasBoudinBownesPierasAdjuntaMonroigAcevedoF.Supp PDP NPPL.P.R.A.w]henTiradopreverdictSherwin i]fScarfoCabletronF.R.D.BendectinApplewhiteReicholdChemsHendricksonaffirmanceseverances--E.D.PaappealabilityC.J.S.McDaniel ABCOLeichterLichtSemenoffe]achBintliffSafecon]othingRocafortEng'gMulvihillFliteLogue DoreSoberal i]tO'Rourkeinartfulp]laintiffsRoldanPlumeyCerezoKmart JNOVtrifurcatedCreightonElrodBrantiFinkelJirauBernalAgraitconclusoryfactfinderBrittonG.M.D.Int'lremittiturCorreachildrensQuirosAmiraultMaxxamMejiasduplicativeSheekprobationalKendrickrelitigatingTriplettmisallocationrelitigationKerotestParklanenonmutualdefendant[sD.P.R.GrellaFaigin suaspontemeritlessC.I.R.SunnenestopestoppingFelicianoLoudermillGaban Soba W]eAgostoGorchevBeattyMachsStachuraPiphusDavetMaccaroneAss'nLaGuardiaHarwoodC]ollateralFugazyMetromediat]hisSec'yc]ompensatoryL.L.C.RennieE]speciallyp]rejudiceZdanokRigoberto t]heCorderoPembaurv.Gertz S.Ctrelitigateestopped   hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    2    _Alleightytwoplaintiffsallegedpoliticaldiscrimination e anddueprocessviolations.Thirtythreeoftheeightytwo ; plaintiffsaddedathirdclaimofpoliticalharassmenttotheir  lawsuit.Thepoliticaldiscriminationanddueprocessclaimsarose  fromthedischargesthemselves,whilethepoliticalharassment X claimsallegedshoddytreatmentinthemonthsprecedingthe . terminations.0CEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(a)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0     hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    3    _Thefactspresentedhereareintendedtoconveyageneral e impressionofthecase.Weprovideadditionalfactsinsubsequent ; . sectionsofthediscussionwheretheyarepertinenttothelegal e analysis.   hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    4    _ArticleXoftheLayOffPlanprovides: e 8  Ifthelayoffisduetolackoffunds,itmustbe  evaluatedifitispossibletogeneratesavingsthrough  meansotherthanrequiringtheeliminationofpermanent X positions.Ifthecrisisistemporary,toconsider . reducingtheworkdayandgrantingunpaidleaves.To i  consider,additionally,ifitisfeasibletoretrain ?  . employeesinotherfunctionsorrelocatethemtoother e positionswithinoroutsidetheMunicipality.;   ArticleX,LayoffPlanforMunicipalityofAdjuntasEmployees  (March1997). 5  hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    12    _Inthecaseatbar,theapplicationofcollateralestoppel e is nonmutualinthesensethatthesixtytwoplaintiffs ; benefittingfromthepredeterminationofliabilitywerenot  partiesinthetrialofthefirsttwentyplaintiffs,wherethe  liabilityquestionwasoriginallylitigated.*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   d*;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK^<6X9`(Courier NewKS_\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K^<6X9`(Courier NewKS_\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K^<6X9`(Courier NewKS_\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7S(X7  ?`%2A`Arial?  S_\  `&Times New RomanS7T(X7&  d dR)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7V(X7  ?`%2A`Arial?  S_\  `&Times New RomanS7T(X7R)2dxd0KS.SampleK^<6X9`(Courier NewKS_\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK^<6X9`(Courier NewKS_\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial      hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    5    _Thereisapotentialargument,disavowedbydefendantshere,  thatRule21(entitled"MisjoinderandNonJoinderofParties")is  notapplicabletocaseswheretherehasbeennoimproperjoinderof  partiesattheoutset.However,theprevailingruleinoursister  circuitsisthatafindingofmisjoinderisnotaprerequisiteto rX severingpartiesorclaimsunderRule21.AstheSecondCircuit H. observedinWyndhamAssoc.v.Bintliff,398F.2d614(2dCir.   1968):   8  Rule21...providesthat"Anyclaimagainstaparty    maybeseveredandproceededwithseparately."We v \  believethatthisprovisionauthorizestheseveranceof L 2  anyclaim,evenwithoutafindingofimproperjoinder, "  wheretherearesufficientotherreasonsfororderinga   severance.    Id.at618;seeSafecoIns.Co.v.CityofWhiteHouse,36F.3d z`  540,54546(6thCir.1994)(characterizingthisprincipleasthe P6  majorityrule). X  hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    6    _Wheredefendantscontinuetoassertqualifiedimmunityafter  undergoingtrialona1983claim,aposttrialgrantofimmunity  wouldstillconferabenefitbyshieldingthemfromanyliability  formonetarydamagesawardedbythejury.SeeRoldanPlumeyv.  CerezoSuarez,115F.3d58,65(1stCir.1997). g  hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    13    _AccordingtoWright,Miller&Cooper: e 8  Thebasicargumentsagainstnonmutualpreclusionmaybe  seenfromtwoaspects....[T]henonpartywhoseeksto  invokenonmutualpreclusionhasneverhadtobearthe X burdensoflitigatingtheissues,andaccordingly . presentsamuchweakerclaimthanapartywhohasborne i  theseburdensoraprivywhohasatleastruntheriskof ?  defeat....[T]he[second]argumentissimplythatthe   riskofproliferatingtheconsequencesofamistaken    judgmentcannotbejustifiedabsentthefullrangeof  \  needsthatrequirepreclusionbetweenpartiesandthose  2  inprivitywiththem.m    18AFederalPractice&Procedure4464(2ded.2002).(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (# e    hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    10    _InCityofNewportv.FactConcerts,Inc.,458U.S.247 e (1981),theSupremeCourtruledthatmunicipalitiesareimmunefrom ; punitivedamagesunder42U.S.C.1983.Seeid.at271.(CEKQW]cioAutoList21)1)1)1)1)1)1)1)i1)   hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    9    _PuertoRicolawgrantscareeremployeesapropertyinterest e intheirgovernmentpositions:"Regularcareeremployeesarethose ; whohaveenteredthesystemafterundergoingtherecruitment  procedureestablishedinthissubtitle,includingtheprobational  period.Theseemployeesshallbeentitledtopermanentstatusand X mayonlyberemovedfromtheirpositionsforjustcauseafterdue . filingofcharges."21P.R.LawsAnn.4554(b)(1991).  0CEMU]emu}AutoList3(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)n(1)   hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    7    _Theindividualdamageawardsforeachplaintiffaretoo  lengthytolisthere.Asageneralmatter,therewassome  uniformityamongthedamageawards.Forcategory(1),alltwenty  plaintiffsreceived$75,000incompensatorydamagesfromDefendant  Veraand$75,000fromDefendantGonzalez.Everyplaintiffalso rX received$15,000inpunitivedamagesfromDefendantVeraand H. $15,000inpunitivedamagesfromDefendantMonroig.     Categories(2),(3),and(4)producedsomevariation.Forthe   eightplaintiffsallegingpoliticalharassment,thejuryfoundthat   fourhadfailedtoprovepoliticalharassment,andawardedno    damagesinthiscategory.Twoplaintiffsreceived$50,000,andthe v \   othertworeceived$75,000.Finally,theawardsforpainand  sufferingrangedfrom$75,000to$150,000,andtheawardsforlost  earningsranthegamutfromzerodamagesawardedto$55,000(all  awardsinthiscategoryreflectedvaryingpercentagereductionsfor  requiredmitigationofdamages). rX Ѐ      hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    11    _Plaintiffsargueonappealthat"[t]hedueprocessaward e effectivelywasthemonetaryequivalentofreinstatement.Should ; thatawardbetakenawayorsignificantlyreducedbythiscourt,  plaintiffswillnothavebeenmadewholefortheirdueprocess  injuries."Ourdecisiontoaffirmthatawardmootsplaintiffs' X crossappealfromthedistrictcourt'sdenialofreinstatement.   hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    1    _Defendantsdonotchallengethelegalavailabilityof e municipalliabilityinthiscase.InCorderov.DeJesusMendez, ; 867F.2d1(1stCir.1989),weacknowledgedtheSupremeCg7/# C Court's  holdinginPembaurv.CityofCincinnati,475U.S.469(1986)that  "municipalityliabilityunder1983attacheswhere...a X deliberatechoicetofollowacourseofactionismadefromamong . variousalternativesbytheofficialorofficialsresponsiblefor i  establishingfinalpolicywithrespecttothesubjectmatterin ?  question."Id.at48384(emphasisadded).TheCorderocourt   subsequentlynotedthatmayorsinPuertoRicoarethegovernment    officialsultimatelyresponsiblefortheemploymentdecisionsof  \  themunicipality:  2  8  8`   UnderPuertoRicolaw,oneoftheexpress C  powersgiventomayorsofmunicipalitiesis:   "Toappointalltheofficialsandemployeesof   themunicipalexecutivebranch,andremove `  themfromofficewhenevernecessaryforthe 6 goodoftheservice,pursuanttothe q  proceduresprovidedherein."P.R.LawsAnn. G tit.21,ch.1553002(15)(1980).` x` x Id.at7.Hence,DefendantVera'semploymentdecisionsipsofacto d "constitutedtheofficialpolicyofthemunicipality."Id.<4 9Z+ Courier New    hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    14    _Wereproducethethreeissuesoncemoreforthereader's e benefit: ;  i(80n"3"    (32  1  )3  0 `   Thatpoliticalaffiliationwasasubstantialor  motivatingfactorintheimplementationofthelayoff X plan.3݌.` (#` (# Ќ  X9%4 4 <DLX9  X6" <DL44X6(2) ` ThatDefendantsviolatedPlaintiffsdueprocessrights ?  byimplementingthelayoffplaninadiscriminatory   fashion.      \  (3) ` ThatPlaintiffsweredischargedfromtheircareer  2  positionswiththeMunicipalityof_Adjuntas_Ԁonaccountof m  theirpoliticalaffiliation;andotherindividualswere C  employedtoperformtheirdutiesunderdifferenttitles,   andotherdifferentprograms,inviolationofthelaw. 1  hx$USUS.,  =XXdd=    8    _Defendantsargueforthefirsttimeintheirreplybriefthat e the"reorganizationexception"todueprocesshearingsprotects ; theiractionsinthiscase.(Foradiscussionofthereorganization  exception,seeDuffyv._$$Serault_$$,892F.2d139,147(1stCir.  1989)("[_$$w]here_$$Ԁareorganizationorothercostcuttingmeasure X resultsindismissalofanemployee,nohearingisdue."))Wedo . notreachthisassertionbecauseargumentsraisedforthefirst i  timeonreplyaredeemedwaived.See,e.g.,_$$Sandstrom_$$v._$$ChemLawn_$$ ?  Corp.,904F.2d83,8687(1stCir.1990). !USUS.,  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T88 ? * !XXXXl(XX     OaOagO#qOa'mF UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals]l( 8 FortheFirstCircuit  8]XX 8   %A') ` dE<A` A B  Nos.0  021139,021340,021465' (#(#    `     h @ LUISA.ACEVEDOGARCIA,etal.,   @ Plaintiffs,Appellees/CrossAppellants,  G  @tt)v. +  @ ROBERTOVERAMONROIG,IndividuallyandasMayorofAdjuntas;     MUNICIPALITYOFADJUNTAS;IRMAM.GONZALEZDELGADO,Individually u  andasPersonnelDirectorofAdjuntas, K  Z@ Defendants,Appellants/CrossAppellees. / A') ` dE<` A  @$ $ APPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT    FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO ^ @[Hon.JaimePieras,Jr.,U.S.SeniorDistrictJudge] B  A') ` dE<` A  @'Before    @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge, G Bownes,*SeniorCircuitJudge, U andLipez,CircuitJudge. +  A') ` dE<` A "       JohannaM._Emmanuelli_Ԅ_Huertas_,withwhomJorgeMartinez  $ LucianoandLawOfficesofPedroA.OrtizAlvarezwereonbrieffor !Z% theMunicipalityofAdjuntas. h"0&   Luis_Villares_ԀSarmiento,withwhom_Yahaida_Ԁ_Zabala_,and >#' Sanchez,_Betances_Ԁ&_Sifre_,wereonbriefforappellants/cross $( appelleesVeraandGonzalezintheirindividualcapacities. $ )   Gael_Mahony_,withwhomIsraelRoldanGonzalez,Stuart_Svonkin_, %!* EricaTempleton,MichaelE._Liftik_,andHill&_Barlow_wereonbrief &^"+ forappellees/crossappellants. l'4#, ________________ B( $-   *SeniorJudgeHughH.Bownesparticipatedintheoriginal )%/ hearinganddispositionofthiscasebutretiredonSeptember1, *&0 2003,priortothefilingofthepetitionforrehearing,andpassed +b'1 awayonNovember5,2003.Theremainingmembersofthepanel p,8(2 compriseaquorumfortheissuanceoftherevisedopinion.See28 F-)3 U.S.C.46(d).  .)4?L _&  *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +   ^  SIr: @37959@SDecember5,2003 H  RHC" @37959 @ R(r:  (* !  8XXdd8*,X` XX*  $ O e8    ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .Thiscomplexpolitical e discriminationcasewasfiledbyeightytwoplaintiffsterminated - fromcareeremploymentpositionswiththemunicipalityofAdjuntas t inPuertoRico.Thedistrictcourtseveredtheplaintiffsinto   fourgroupsthreegroupsoftwentyandonegroupoftwentytwo 1  Єandtheclaimsofthefirsttwentyplaintiffsarenowbeforeus  x  ondefendants'appealfromasubstantialverdictforplaintiffs. $  Althoughthiscaseraisesmanyfamiliarissues,italsopresents 5  someunusualquestionsarisingfromthecourt'sinitialseverance |  oftheplaintiffs,anditslaterdecisiontoapplynonmutual ( offensivecollateralestoppeltothethreeremainingpiecesofthe 9 severedlitigation.Wevacatethecourt'scollateralestoppel  order,andaffirminallotherrespects. ,   I.  = Z ` OnNovember12,1997,eightytwocurrentandformer  employeesofthemunicipalityofAdjuntasbroughtsuitunder42 L U.S.C.1983,allegingviolationsoftheirFirst,Fifthand ]  FourteenthAmendmentrightsarisingfromamassivelayoffof  !" municipalemployeesintheaftermathoftheNovember1996mayoral "P$ election.Everyclaimantwasfiredfroma"careerposition"(akin a$& toacivilservicejob),asopposedtoa"trustposition"  &!( (politicalappointment),temporaryortransitorypost,or 'T#* "contract"(fixedterm)job.Theplaintiffsnamedthreedefendants e)%, inthesuitRobertoVeraMonroig("Vera"),themayorofAdjuntas +&. (suedinbothhisindividualandofficialcapacities);Irma ,X(0 Gonzalez,Adjunta'sDirectorofHumanResources(suedinbothher e individualandofficialcapacities);andthemunicipalityof  Adjuntas.s  #  1      ׀ X  ` OnNovember23,1998,thedistrictcourtissuedanorder i  andopiniondenyingabsoluteand/orqualifiedimmunitytoMayor   VeraandGonzalezintheirindividualcapacities,andgrantingin  \  partanddenyinginpartthedefendants'motionforsummary m  judgment.SeeAcevedoGarciav.VeraMonroig,30F.Supp.2d141   (D.P.R.1998)("AcevedoI").InanopinionpublishedFebruary17, `  2000,weaffirmedthedistrictcourt'sorderinallrespects, q  rulinginteraliathatdefendantscouldnotclaimtheprotectionof  absoluteimmunity,andthatwelackedjurisdictiontoreviewthe d districtcourt'srulingsonqualifiedimmunityandmunicipal e liability.SeeAcevedoGarciav.VeraMonroig,204F.3d1(1st  Cir.2000)("AcevedoII"). X  ` OurdecisioninAcevedoIIclearedtheremaining i  roadblockstotrial,andthedistrictcourtundertookthe   formidablelogisticaltaskofarrangingtotrythemultitudeof  \  politicaldiscrimination,politicalharassment,anddueprocess m  claimsallegedbytheeightytwoindividualplaintiffs.  #  2      ׀Tothis   end,thecourtissuedanorderonOctober11,2001,severingthe `  caseintofourseparatetrialsoftwenty,twenty,twenty,and q  twentytwoplaintiffs,respectively.Toconfigurethefirstgroup  oftwentyplaintiffs,theorderdirectedeachsidetochoosesix d plaintiffswithpoliticaldiscriminationanddueprocessclaims u only(foratotaloftwelve),andfourplaintiffsprosecuting ! politicaldiscrimination,dueprocessandpoliticalharassment h claims(foratotalofeight). y  ` ThetrialforthisfirstgroupbeganOctober12,2001, %  andlastedtwentythreedays.Attheconclusionofthe  l" proceedings,thejuryreturnedaverdictawardingeachplaintiffa }"$ packageofcompensatoryandpunitivedamagestotalinghundredsof )$& thousandsofdollars,summingtoagrouptotalof$6,956,400. e Afteraflurryofposttrialmotions,thecourtenteredjudgmenton  theverdict.ItthenissuedanorderonJanuary30,2002applying X thedoctrineofnonmutualoffensivecollateralestoppelto i  precludedefendantsfromlitigatingthedefendants'liabilityfor   politicaldiscriminationanddenialoftheplaintiffs'dueprocess  \  rights.AcevedoGarciav.VeraMonroig,213F.Supp.2d38,41 m  (D.P.R.2002).   % ` (Defendantsfiledatimelyappealafterthisfirsttrial, `  challenginginteraliathesufficiencyoftheevidenceatthe q  summaryjudgmentstage,thesufficiencyoftheevidenceattrial,  theseveranceofplaintiffsintofourgroups,thedistrictcourt's d denialofqualifiedimmunity,numerousevidentiaryrulings,the u court'sactiveparticipationattrial,thedamageaward,andthe ! court'sapplicationofnonmutualoffensivecollateralestoppel. h Plaintiffscrossappealedfromthedistrictcourt'sdenialofan y injunctionorderingthereinstatementofallplaintiffs. %    II.   l" + ` AcevedoIandAcevedoIIprovidealengthyexpositionof "4$ thebackgroundfactsinthiscase.SeeAcevedoII,204F.3dat4 E$& 7;AcevedoI,30F.Supp.2dat14345.Wesummarizethosefacts %!( here,andsupplementourrecitationwithanoverviewofthepost '8#* AcevedoIIdevelopments.  #  3      ׀ I)$,  A.StipulatedandUndisputedFacts  e  ` DefendantVera,representingthePopularDemocraticParty - ("PDP"),wontheNovember1996mayoralelectioninAdjuntas,and t appointedDefendantGonzalez,afellowPDPmember,tobethe   DirectorofHumanResourcesonJanuary14,1997.VeraandGonzalez 1  inheritedamunicipalgovernmentwhoserankswereswelledby115  x  newhiresduringthesevenyearadministrationofRigobertoRamos, $  Vera'spredecessor,andamemberoftherivalNewProgressiveParty 5  ("NPP").Ofthose115employees,only2wereaffiliatedwiththe |  PDP.ByJanuary1997,themunicipalityemployed229regular ( employees,andthepartiesstipulatedpriortotrialthat"many 9 departmentsweresooverstaffedthatsomeemployeesdidnothave  desks." ,  ` OnApril30,1996,thePuertoRicoComptroller'sOffice = publishedanauditreport,M9614,indicatingthatAdjuntashad  accruedannualbudgetdeficitsofatleast$1,000,000from1985to 0 1990.AfterVeratookofficeinJanuary1997,hecommissioneda A  secondfinancialauditofthemunicipalitybyReinaldoRamirez,a  " certifiedpublicaccountant.RamirezpresentedhisreportonMay "4$ 8,1997,informingcityofficialsthatthemunicipalityhada E$& budgetdeficitofover$5,000,000andlongtermdebtstotalingmore %!( than$2,000,000.Anticipatingthisunwelcomenews,Verahad '8#* previouslyhiredaHumanResourcesConsultingfirminFebruary1997 I)$, topreparea"LayoffPlanforMunicipalityofAdjuntasEmployees" e (the"Plan").TheconsultantscompletedthePlaninMarch1997,  anditreceivedapprovalfromtheAdjuntasMunicipalAssemblyon X April2,1997(asrequiredunderPuertoRico'sAutonomous i  MunicipalitiesAct).See21P.R.LawsAnn.4551,asamended   (1995)("Law81").OnApril11,1997,acopyofthePlanwas  \  circulatedtoeverymunicipalemployee. m   ` Inbroadstrokes,thePlan(1)enumeratedthestepsthe   municipalitywasobligedtoundertakebeforefiringemployees `  (includingrelocation,retraining,temporaryunpaidleave, q  demotionstovacantpositions,andvoluntaryretirement);(2)  establishedanorderofpriorityforlayingoffmunicipalworkers; d and(3)establishedaseriesofproceduresforearmarking u particularemployeesandjobclassificationsfortermination,and ! forprovidingnoticetotheaffectedindividuals.ThePlanwasnot h selfexecuting.Instead,itauthorizedtheterminationof y municipalemployees"[w]hentheMayordeterminesthatthereare %  financialproblemsandthatasaresult,programsorservicesare  l" beingaffected."TheMayormadethisdeterminationinMay1997 }"$ afterconferringwithRamirezandtheHumanResourceconsultants, )$& andheorderedcityofficialstoimplementthePlan.Whenthedust %p!( settledonOctober31,1997,102employees,including82NPP '#* membersand11PDPmembers,hadbeenfiredfromtheircareer -)$,  positions. *t&.  ` SinceJanuary1,1997,themunicipalityhashired e  seventysevennewemployeesto"contract"orfixedtermjobsfunded  throughnonmunicipalsources(i.e.federalandstateprograms). X Themostsignificantoftheseprograms,referredtoas"Law52," i  allowsmunicipalitiestopresentjobtrainingproposalstothe   LaborDepartmentoftheCommonwealthofPuertoRico,whichmaythen  \  appropriatefundsonanannualbasistounderwritethesalariesof m  acertainnumberofmunicipalemployeesthatthecitycouldnot   otherwiseafford.Onlyfiveoftheeightytwoplaintiffsreceived `  oneoftheseseventysevenappointments,thevastmajorityofwhich q  wenttoPDPmembers.   B.ContestedFacts  d  ` Thetrialfeaturedacontentiousdisputeregardingthe , periodprecedingtheOctober31,1997layoffs.Thetwenty = plaintiffsinthefirsttrialgrouptestifiedthatduringthis  period,thedefendantssabotagedtheirworkingconditionsby 0 denyingNPPemployees(andonlyNPPemployees)basicamenities, A  includingphoneprivileges,shortworkbreaksforbreakfast,access  " torestroomfacilities,andtheopportunitytodrivemunicipal "4$ vehiclestoperformtheirjobfunctions.Manyplaintiffstestified E$& thattheywereremovedfromtheirjobsentirely,andsenttorandom %!( locationswheretheywereeithergivennothingtodoformonthson '8#* endorelseorderedtoperformmenialtasksoutsidethescopeof I)$, theirjobdescriptions.Thedefendantsdeniedtheseallegations, *&. contendingthatpriorabusesoftelephoneprivilegesandmunicipal ,<(0 vehicleshadcontributedtolargebudgetoverrunsthatcompelled e themunicipalitytorestrictaccesstotheseservices.According  todefendants,thedearthoffunctioningbathroomfacilitieswasa X consequenceofplumbingandphysicalinfrastructuredeficiencies i  thatwereignoredduringthepreviousNPPmayoraladministrations.    ` Therewasalsoafactualcontroversyconcerningthe  \  implementationofthePlan.Thedefendantsinsistedthatthe m  particularlayoffschemedevelopedinaccordancewiththePlanwas   politicallyneutralinbothitsconceptionandimplementation. `  NotingthatpriorNPPadministrationshadalmostexclusivelyhired q  NPPmemberstofilloverahundredmunicipalpositionsinthe  precedingyears,theyclaimeditwasinevitablethataseniority d basedlayoffplanwoulddisproportionatelyimpactNPPemployees. u Ѐ ` Plaintiffspresentedevidenceofadifferentagenda.In ! theirview,MayorVeramanipulatedthePlantoproduce h discriminatoryresultsinthreeways.First,hecontravened y provisionsofthePlanbyfailingtoseriouslyconsidermeasures %  shortofoutrighttermination,includingrelocation,retraining,  l" temporaryunpaidleave,demotionstovacantpositions,and }"$ voluntaryretirement.   #  4      ׀Second,thelayoffschemedeveloped )$& mF  me m  pursuanttothePlantiedterminationtosenioritywithinjob  classifications,ratherthanseniorityacrosstheboard.  Hypothetically,underthisscheme,anNPPlibrarianwithseven rX yearsofsenioritycouldbelaidoffwhileaPDPofficeclerkwith   fiveyearsofseniorityretainedherposition.Vera'sschemethus   eschewedthepossibilityofretrainingveteranNPPemployeesto v \  takeoverthejobsoflessseniorPDPmemberswithjobsrequiring "  asimilarskillset(butbearingadifferentclassification),   therebyexacerbatingthediscriminatoryimpactofthelayoffs. z`  Third,thesenioritysystememployedbydefendantsincorporateda &  fixedyearsofservicethresholdeightyearsandtenmonths  thatdatedbackpreciselytotheendofthepreviousPDP ~d administrationinAdjuntas.Inotherwords,anyemployeewith * eightyearsandtenmonthsofseniority(ormore)wasimmunefrom  thelayoffs.Accordingly,PDPmembershiredduringthatprevious h administrationwereinsulatedfromthelayoffs,whileallemployees . hiredthereafter(duringtheinterveningNPPadministrations)were   atriskoftermination.  l"  ` Finally,therewasevidencethatVeracontrivedtoshed 2"$ NPPemployeeswithsufficientsenioritytowithstandtheinitial #& roundoflayoffsbysimplyeliminatingtheirjobcategory %p!( altogether.Forexample,ifanNPPmemberemployedasa"Citizens'  AffairsSpecialist"outrankedhisPDPcolleaguesontheseniority  scale,themunicipalitywouldeliminatetheCitizens'Affairs rX Specialistpositionentirely,andthenhirebacktheformerPDP   Citizens'AffairsSpecialistsundertheauspicesofLaw52orsome   otheremploymentprogramfundedbyoutsidesources. v \    III.  "   U  ` Defendantsraisedmanifoldclaimsoferror.Weaddress   firstthechallengestothepretrialrulings,thenclaims |  regardingtheeventsattrial,andfinallychallengestothepost B( trialrulings.   A.PreTrialRulings   1.Sufficiencyoftheevidenceatthesummaryjudgmentstage bH  ` Inpartiallydenyingdefendants'motionforsummary  dispositionofplaintiffs'politicaldiscriminationclaims,the  districtcourtofferedthefollowingexplanationforitsruling: fL 8 ` Plaintiffshaveputforthsufficientevidence   tosustaintheirinitialburdenthat ! Defendants'employmentdecisionswerebasedon  " improperanddiscriminatorymotives. !z# Defendantshave,however,putforthevidence j"P$ insupportoftheirburdenthatregardlessof @#&% Plaintiffs'politicalaffiliation,the $& municipalbudgetarycrisisrequiredthe $ ' municipalitytocutjobsonthebasisof %!( seniority....TheCourtfindsthatthis &~") profferofevidenceissufficientto n'T#* demonstratethatregardlessofpolitical D(*$+ affiliation,Defendantswouldhavemadethe )%, samedecisioninlayingoffPlaintiffs.)%-` x` x   *&. WAcevedoI,30F.Supp.2dat154.Defendantscontendthatthis   findingmandatedthedismissalofplaintiffs'political  discriminationclaimsundertheruleestablishedinMt.Healthy rX CitySch.Dis.Bd.ofEduc.v.Doyle,429U.S.274,287(1977),and   insistthatthedistrictcourterredinshiftingtheburdenof   proofbacktoplaintiffstodemonstratethat"theywouldnothave v \  beenfired'butfor'theirpoliticalaffiliation."AcevedoI,30 "  F.Supp.2dat154(citingRodriguezPintov.TiradoDelgado,982   F.2d34,39(1stCir.1993);AvilesMartinezv.Monroig,963F.2d z`  2,5(1stCir.1992)).Thecourtcompoundeditserror,in &  defendants'view,bypostponingafinalrulingonplaintiffs'  politicaldiscriminationclaimspendingthesubmissionof ~d additionalevidencefromplaintiffstodemonstratethattheywere * qualifiedtofilltheseventysevennewpositionscreatedbythe  municipalityafterJanuary1,1997.Defendantsarguethatthe h courtwasobligedtoruleintheirfavoronthebasisofthe . insufficientevidencecurrentlybeforeit.    ` Theseobjectionsareunavailing.Whenadistrictcourt's  l" assessmentoftheevidentiaryrecordatthesummaryjudgmentstage 2"$ issubsequently"overtaken"byafulltrialandverdict,itisour #& practicenottorevisitthatdeterminationonappeal: %p!( 8 ` Weneednotaddressthemeritsof[a] 6'#* preverdictchallengetothesufficiencyofthe  (#+ evidenceonthemotionforsummaryjudgment. ($, Suchanattackonthedenialofdefendant's )%- motionforsummaryjudgment"hasbeen *t&. overtakenbysubsequentevents,namely,a d+J'/ fulldresstrialandanadversejuryverdict" :, (0 ...Therationaleforthisrulehasbeen  basedontheproceduralfactthatdenialofa  motionforsummaryjudgment"ismerelya  judge'sdeterminationthatgenuineissuesof  materialfactexist.Itisnotajudgment, rX anddoesnotforeclosetrialonissueson H. whichsummaryjudgmentwassought."Hence,a   challengetothesufficiencyoftheevidence   adducedonthemotiontosupportthedistrict   court'sconclusionthatgenuineissuesof    materialfactexistwillnotlieonappeal.v \ ` x` x bEasternMountainPlatformTennis,Inc.v.SherwinWilliamsCo.,40 "  F.3d492,500(1stCir.1994)(internalcitationsomitted).   Accordingly,anysufficiencyoftheevidencechallengeonappeal z`  mustbegroundedintherecordasawhole.Here,defendantsalso &  arguethatthetrialrecordconsideredinitsentiretydidnot  supportthejuryverdict,andweaddressthatclaimlaterinthe ~d discussion. * 2.Severance   ` OnOctober11,1997,thedistrictcourtseveredthecase h intofourseparatetrials,findingthat . 8 ` itisnotpracticalorjusttosubjectone   jurypaneltoatrialinwhich82plaintiffs ! withvaryingclaimswillbetestifying.No  l" singlejurypanelwouldbeabletoremember \!B# allofthetestimonyandevidenceorbeable 2"$ toreachafairandimpartialverdictatthe #% endofthattime.Itistheopinionofthis #& Courtthatseverancewillmostlikelyresult $ ' inajustfinaldispositionofthis %p!( litigation.`&F")` x` x SjThedefendantsobjectedonnumerousgrounds,arguinginteralia  (#+ thatthecourt'sproposal(1)precludeddefendantsfromeliciting )%- contradictorytestimonyamongplaintiffs,(2)imposedincreased d+J'/ expenseandinconvenienceondefendantsbycompellingthe  examinationofexpertwitnessesandgovernmentofficialsonfour  occasionsratherthanone,(3)reducedthelikelihoodofan rX impartialjuryforthesecond,thirdandfourthplaintiffgroups,   and(4)hampereddefendants'abilitytoportraytherelevantevents   tothejuryinacomprehensivefashion.OnOctober15,thecourt v \  emphaticallyrejectedtheseconcernsinawrittenruling: "  8 ` TheconsiderationsallegedbyDefendantsasto   thefactthattheywouldhavetopresent   evidenceatfourdifferentoccasionsisof z`  secondaryimportance."Aparamount P6 considerationatalltimesinthe &  administrationofjusticeisafairand  impartialtrialtoalllitigants.  Considerationsofeconomyoftime,moneyand  convenienceofwitnessesmustyieldthereto."~d` x` x =pAcevedoGarciav.VeraMonroig,240F.R.D.26,30(D.P.R.2001) * (quotingInreBendectinLitigation,857F.2d290,308(6thCir.  1988)). h  ` Defendantslodgetwoobjectionstotheseveranceon . appeal.First,theyarguethatthedistrictcourt'srefusaltotry   theclaimsofalleightytwoplaintiffsatoncewasinappropriate  l" andunfairlyprejudicial.Wecandispensewiththisargument 2"$ quickly.Thedecisiontoseparatepartiesorclaimsisacase #& managementdetermination"peculiarlywithinthediscretionofthe %p!( trialcourt,"GonzalezMarinv.EquitableLifeAssuranceSocy.,845 6'#* F.2d1140,1145(1stCir.1998),andcourtsofappealsaccordbroad ($, latitudetodistrictcourtsinthisarea.Id.;Applewhitev. *t&. ReicholdChems.,Inc.,67F.3d571,574(5thCir.1995);NewYork :, (0 v.HendricksonBros.,Inc.,840F.2d1065,1082(2dCir.1988).We  wouldnote,however,thatweneednotrestouraffirmanceonthis  deferentialstandardofreviewthecircumstancesofthiscase rX compeltheconclusionthatthedivisionofplaintiffswasa   legitimateandfeasiblemeansofefficientlyconductingthis   unwieldylitigation. v \   ` Defendants'secondobjectionismoretroublesome,and "  implicatestheparticularproceduraldeviceemployedbythe   districtcourttoquartertheproceedings."Twotypesof z`  severancesorseparationsofclaimsarecontemplatedbytheFederal &  RulesofCivilProcedureonewithintheactionitself,theother  resultinginasecond,ornewaction."OfficialComm.ofUnsecured ~d Creditorsv.Shapiro,190F.R.D.352,354(E.D.Pa.2000).Rule21 * oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedurefurnishesthemechanismfor  separatingacaseintoseparateactions,i.e,severance:"Parties h maybedroppedoraddedbyorderofthecourtonmotionofany . partyorofitsowninitiativeatanystageoftheactionandon   suchtermsasarejust.Anyclaimagainstapartymaybesevered  l" andproceededwithseparately."Fed.R.Civ.P.21;see9Charles 2"$ AlanWright&ArthurR.Miller,FederalPracticeandProcedure #& 2387(1971);88C.J.S.Trial17(2003)("Aseveranceoccurswhen %p!( alawsuitisdividedintotwoormoreseparateandindependentor 6'#* distinctcauses.").Rule42(b),ontheotherhand,authorizes ($, courtstodivideasingleactionintoseparatetrialsthatremain *t&. undertheumbrellaoftheoriginalsolitaryaction: :, (0 8 ` Thecourt,infurtheranceofconvenienceorto  avoidprejudice,orwhenseparatetrialswill  beconducivetoexpeditionandeconomy,may  orderaseparatetrialofanyclaim,cross  claim,counterclaim,orthirdpartyclaim,or rX ofanyseparateissueorofanynumberof H. claims,crossclaims,counterclaims,third   partyclaims,orissues. ` x` x =Fed.R.Civ.P.42(b);see9Wright&Miller,FederalPracticeand    Procedure2387;88C.J.S.Trial17("Anorderforaseparate L 2  trialkeepsthelawsuitintactwhileenablingthecourttohearand   decideoneormoreissueswithouttryingallofthecontroverted   issuesatthesamehearing."). P6  ` Thesalientdistinctionbetweenthesetwoprocedural  devicesconcernstheappealabilityofanorderterminatingthe  proceedingsinapartitionedpieceofthelitigation: T: 8 ` Thejudgmentinaseveredactionisfinal,  enforceableandappealablewhenitdisposesof  allpartiesandissues.Conversely,theorder  enteredattheconclusionofaseparatetrial h isofteninterlocutorybecauseafinaland X> appealablejudgmentcannotberendereduntil . allofthecontrollingissueshavebeentried  anddecided. ` x` x 88C.J.S.Trial17;seeWhitev.ABCOEng'gCorp.,199F.3d140,  l" 145n.6(3dCir.1999);9Wright&Miller,FederalPracticeand 2"$ Procedure2387(1971)("Separatetrialsusuallywillresultin #& onejudgment,butseveredclaimsbecomeentirelyindependent %p!( actionstobetried,andjudgmententeredthereon, 6'#* independently."). ($,  ` Courtsoftenconfusethesetwoproceduraldevices."The *t&. procedureauthorizedbyRule42(b)shouldbedistinguishedfrom :, (0 aOa a8 a  severanceunderRule21....Unfortunately,thisdistinction,  clearenoughintheory,oftenisobscuredinpracticesinceat  timesthecourtstalkof'separatetrial'and'severance' rX interchangeably."9Wright&Miller,FederalPracticeand   Procedure2387;seeMcDanielv.AnheuserBusch,Inc.,987F.2d   298,304(5thCir.1993).Here,defendantsarguethatthecourt v \  committedreversibleerrorbyinvokingRule42(b)asthebasisfor "  partitioningtheplaintiffsintofourgroupswhileconductingthe   proceedingsasiftheyhadbeenseveredunderRule21. z`   ` ThedistrictcourtaddressedthedistinctionbetweenRule &  42(b)andRule21initsOctober15decision:  8 ` Intheinstantmotion,Defendantscontendthat ~d severanceofactionsiscoveredbyRule21of T: theFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,andnot * byRule42(b).Thisdistinctionisoflittle  consequencebecausebothrulesprovidethe  Courtwithwidediscretiontoorderseverance  ....TheCourt'sdeterminationasto h whetheritshouldsevertheclaimsof X> PlaintiffsunderRule21orwhetheritshould . orderseparatetrialsunderRule42requires  thesameconsiderations,andarewithinthe   broaddiscretionoftheDistrictCourt.!` x` x AcevedoGarcia,204F.R.D.at2930.Althoughthecourtaccurately \!B# observedthatithadwidediscretiontomanagethelitigationunder #% eitherrule,theparticularproceduraldeviceitemployedisof $ ' paramountimportanceinthisappeal.Becauseourjurisdictionis `&F") limitedto"allfinaldecisionsofthedistrictcourtsofthe  (#+ UnitedStates,"UnitedStatesv.Leichter,160F.3d33,35(1st )%- Cir.1998)(emphasisadded),wecannotexercisejurisdictionover d+J'/ anappealfromaseparatetrialordainedunderRule42(b).SeeIn  reLicht&Semonoff,796F.2d564,569(1stCir.1986)("A'final  decision'isordinarilyonewhichdisposesofalltherightsofall rX thepartiestoanaction.")(emphasisadded).Moreover,since   separatetrialsdonotindividuallyproducefinaljudgments,any   attempttoapplycollateralestoppeltotheremainingthreetrials v \  wouldbeinvalidunderaRule42(b)regime.SeeNLRBv.DonnaLee "  SportswearCo.,836F.2d31,3334(1stCir.1987)(notingthatone   "essentialelementwhichmustbepresentforthesuccessful z`  applicationofissuepreclusion"isthat"thedeterminationmust &  resultinavalidandfinaljudgment.")(emphasisadded);Griffin  v.Burns,570F.2d1065,1072(1stCir.1978)(same);Restatement ~d (Second)ofJudgements27(same). *  ` Asdefendantsconcede,thisisnotacasewherethe  districtcourt'sintentionswereambiguous.SeeMcDaniel,987F.2d h at304.Thedistrictcourt'sorderofOctober11explicitlystates . that"[e]achJudgmententeredattheendofeachofthesefour   trialsshallbefinalandappealableandpublishedandsubjectto  l" allmotionsprovidedbytheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,such 2"$ as'newtrial,''judgmentnotwithstandingtheverdict',etc." #& Additionally,initsopinionrejectingdefendants'objectionsto %p!( theseverance,thecourtreasonedthat 6'#* 8 ` conductingseparatetrialswhereinthejury ($, verdictfromeachtrialisfinaland )%- appealableastoeachsetofPlaintiffs *t&. facilitatesjudicialeconomyandpossible d+J'/ settlementinthiscasebyprovidingthe :, (0 partieswithsomescaleormodeluponwhichto  reassesswhetherfurtherlitigationwouldbe  prudentoradvantageoustotheircause.` x` x ÙAcevedoGarcia,204F.R.D.at30.Thus,thecourt'sreferencesto rX Rule42(b)notwithstanding,itsclearlyarticulatedintentwasto   severtheplaintiffspursuanttoRule21.TheThirdCircuit   observedinWhitethat"[n]othingonthefaceofRule21indicates v \  thatitmustbeexplicitlyinvokedinordertohaveeffect.There "  mustbe,however,astrongindicationthatthejudgeintendedto   effectaseverance."White,199F.3dat145n.6(citingAllied z`  Elevator,Inc.v.E.Tex.StateBankofBuna,965F.2d34,36(5th &  Cir.1992)).Thatintentismanifestfromthelanguageofthe  court'sOctober11order.Accordingly,wefindnoreversibleerror ~d inthecourt'sseverancerulingunderRule21,andweregardthe * districtcourt'sentryofjudgmentontheverdictbelowasafinal  andappealablejudgmentunder28U.S.C.1291.b  #  5       h  B.TheTrial   1.Evidentiaryrulings   ` Plaintiffsaptlycharacterizethedefendants'challenges t tothedistrictcourt'sevidentiaryrulingsas"rambling," :  "discursive"and"unrefined."Defendants'briefsnarratively   reciteaplethoraofoffendingrulingsinascattershotformat  x  devoidoflegalauthority,citationstoanalogouscases,orany >$  applicationoflawtofacts.Thebriefsalsoleaveuncertainwhich   ofthedozensofevidentiarychallengesraisedonappealwere |  properlypreservedbelow.SeeReyesGarciav.Rodriguez&Del B( Valle,Inc.,82F.3d11,14(1stCir.1996).Withonepossible  exception,theevidentiarychallengesthatsurvivethesedefects   lackthedevelopedargumentationneededtotriggerreviewonthe F, merits."Wehavesteadfastlydeemedwaivedissuesraisedonappeal  inaperfunctorymanner,notaccompaniedbydeveloped  argumentation."Mulvihillv.TopFliteGolfCo.,335F.3d15,27 J0 (1stCir.2003).   ̀ ` Theoneevidentiarychallengethatarguablymeritsour N"4$ attentionisthedefendants'contentionthatthecourtimproperly #& admittedevidenceaboutclaimsnotatissuenamely,political %!( harassmentclaimsfiledbyparticularplaintiffsthatthecourthad R'8#* earlierdismissed.Defendantscorrectlypointoutthat,insome ($, cases,evidenceofpreviouslydismissedclaimsmayhaveanundue  tendencytosuggestadecisiononanimproperbasis.However,the  SupremeCourthasruledthatsuchevidenceisnotipsofacto rX inadmissible,notingthat"[a]discriminatoryactwhichisnotmade   thebasisfora[]charge...mayconstituterelevantbackground   evidenceinaproceedinginwhichthestatusofacurrentpractice v \  isatissue."UnitedAirLines,Inc.v.Evans,431U.S.553,558 "  (1977);seeO'Rourkev.CityofProvidence,235F.3d713,726(1st   Cir.2001);Morrisonv.CarletonWoolenMills,Inc.,108F.3d429, z`  439(1stCir.1997).Presumablydefendantsgroundtheirchallenge &  totheserulesinFederalRulesofEvidence403,whichprovides  thatotherwiserelevantevidence"maybeexcludedifitsprobative ~d valueissubstantiallyoutweighedbythedangerofunfair * prejudice...."Fed.R.Evid.403.Asthiscourthaspreviously  explained,"[o]nlyrarelyandinextraordinarilycompelling h circumstanceswillwe,fromthevistaofacoldappellate . record,reverseadistrictcourt'sonthespotjudgmentconcerning   therelativeweighingofprobativevalueandunfaireffect."  l" Freemanv.PackageMachineryCo.,865F.2d1331,1340(1stCir. 2"$ 1988). Wefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthedistrictcourt's #& decisiontoadmitthisevidenceasrelevantbackground"toshowthe %p!( atmosphereinwhich[plaintiffs]livedanddevelopedsinceMayor 6'#* VerawaselectedMayor." ($,  2.Activeparticipationofthecourt *t&.  ` Defendantsallegethatatvariousjuncturesduringthe   trialthedistrictcourtinaccuratelyandprejudiciallycommented  ontheevidence,truncatedthedefendants'crossexaminationof rX severalplaintiffs,andchastiseddefensewitnessesinfrontofthe   jury.Aswehavepreviouslyobserved,itiswellsettledthatthe   trialjudge"hasaperfectrightalbeitarightthatshouldbe v \  exercisedwithcaretoparticipateactivelyinthetrial "  proper."Loguev.Dore,103F.3d1040,1045(1stCir.1997)."A   trialjudgeretainsthecommonlawpowertoquestionwitnessesand z`  tocommentontheevidence."UnitedStatesv.GonzalezSoberal, &  109F.3d64,72(1stCir.1997).Inreviewingtheportionsofthe  transcriptstowhichdefendantsrefer,wefindnocommentaryor ~d questionbythetrialjudge,oranyexchangeinvolvingthetrial * judge,thatexceedstheboundsofacceptablejudicial  participation.Thisisespeciallytruegivendefendants'failure h todirectourattentiontoanycaselawaddressingfactsanalogous . tothosehere.    ` Additionally,"[a]ninquiryintothejudge'sconductof  l" thetrialnecessarilyturnsonthequestionofwhetherthe 2"$ complainingpartycanshowseriousprejudice."UnitedStatesv. #& GonzalezSoberal,109F.3d64,72(1stCir.1997).Defendantsalso %p!( failtodemonstrate"seriousprejudice"arisingfromthecourt's 6'#* participationduringplaintiffs'caseinchief.Thiswasalengthy ($, andcontentioustrialfeaturingdozensofwitnesses,numerous *t&. sidebarconferences,andamyriadofotherproceduraldelays :, (0 arising,interalia,fromtheinartfullabelingandintroductionof  exhibits,translationdifficulties,andacontinuingstreamof  objectionsfrombothparties.Underthesechallenging rX circumstances,thecourt'seffortstoacceleratethepaceofthe   trialwithinfrequentcommentaryontheevidenceandtheoccasional   proddingofwitnesseswereamplyjustifiedandwellwithinits v \  discretion.SeeRosarioDiazv.Gonzalez,140F.3d312,315(1st "  Cir.1998)("TheCivilRulesendowjudgeswithformidablecase   managementauthority....Inexercisingthispower,trialjudges z`  enjoygreatlatitude.")(citationsomitted). &   C.PostTrialRulings   1.QualifiedImmunity   ` TheSupremeCourthasrecognizedthatqualifiedimmunity F, embodies"anentitlementnottostandtrialorfacetheother  burdensoflitigation,conditionedontheresolutionofthe  essentiallylegalquestionwhethertheconductofwhichthe J0 plaintiffcomplainsviolatedclearlyestablishedlaw."Mitchellv.   Forsyth,472U.S.511,526(1985).Defendants'effortstoinvoke  " theprotectionsofqualifiedimmunityatthesummaryjudgment N"4$ stage,however,wererejectedbythedistrictcourt,which #& concludedthat"[p]laintiffs[]profferedevidenceofatriable %!( issueoffactregardingapotentiallydiscriminatoryapplicationof R'8#* theLayoffPlan....Therefore,Defendantsarenotentitledto ($, qualifiedimmunityfortheirallegedlydiscriminatoryactions *&. merelybecausetheyasserttheyactedpursuantto[theLayoff V,<(0 Plan]."AcevedoI,30F.Supp.2dat149.Aspreviouslynoted,we  dismisseddefendants'interlocutoryappealfromthisruling,  determiningthatwelackedjurisdictiontoreviewthefactual rX groundsforthedistrictcourt'sdenialofqualifiedimmunity.   AcevedoII,204F.3dat10.    ` Afterthejuryreturneditsverdict,defendantsrenewed v \  theirchallengetothecourt'sdenialofqualifiedimmunity,c  #  6       "  arguingthatinlightofthefactselicitedattrial,"the   unlawfulnessofimplementingalayoffplandulyapprovedbythe z`  municipallegislatureaccordingtosenioritywouldnothavebeen &  apparenttoareasonableofficial."(citingHarlowv.Fitzgerald,  457U.S.800,818(1982)).Thecourtonceagainrejected ~d defendants'claim,concludingthatthejury'sfindingsforeclosed * theavailabilityofimmunity:  8 ` Fortherecord,theprohibitionagainst h politicaldiscriminationwasclearly X> establishedin1997whenDefendantsactedto . violatePlaintiffs'constitutionallyprotected  rights.Ajurytrialwasheldwherein   Plaintiffspresentedevidencethatsupported ! theirallegationsofpoliticaldiscrimination.  l" TheevidenceledtheJurytoconcludethat \!B# politicalaffiliationwasinfacta 2"$ substantialormotivatingfactorforMayor #% VeraMonroig'sandIrmaGonzalez'sactions.. #& ..Therefore,thequalifiedimmunityargument $ '  thatDefendantsnowmakeissimplyanattempt %p!( torewritethefactsandrelitigatethis  case.` x` x   ` Defendantsallegetwoerrorsinthedistrictcourt's  postverdictdenialofqualifiedimmunity.First,theyclaimthat H. thecourterredinfailingtodelivertwoproposedinstructionson   qualifiedimmunitytothejury:    1. ` ProposedJuryInstruction51:QualifiedImmunity L 2  0 ` Governmentofficialsperformingdiscretionaryfunctions   aregrantedqualifiedimmunityfromcivilclaimsfor   damages,iftheirconductatthetimeoftheallegedacts   thatgiverisetothecivildamages"doesnotviolate z`  clearlyestablishedstatutoryorconstitutionalrightsof P6 whichareasonablepersonwouldhaveknown."The &  relevantinquiry"istheobjectivequestionwhethera  reasonableofficercouldhavebelievedtheactions  allegedbytheplaintiffherein"tobelawful,inlight  ofclearlyestablishedlawandtheinformationthestate ~d officialpossessed.7T:` (#` (# 2.0 ` ProposedJuryInstruction53:ReachofQualified  Immunity` (#` (# 0 ` Evendefendantswhoviolateconstitutionalrightsenjoy h aqualifiedimmunitythatprotectsthemfromliability X> fordamagesunlessitisfurtherdemonstratedthattheir . conductwasunreasonablewithrespecttoclearly  establishedrightsandlawsatthetimeoftheconductat   issue.!` (#` (# Afterproposingtheseinstructions,defendantsconcedethatthey \!B# failedtoobjectontherecordtothecourt'srefusaltoissuethe #% instructionsbeforethejuryretiredtodeliberate.Accordingly, $ ' wereviewforplainerroronly.SeeChestnutv.CityofLowell, `&F") 305F.3d18,20(1stCir.2002)(enbanc)("Failurestoobject,  (#+ unlessatruewaiverisinvolved,arealmostalwayssubjectto )%- reviewforplainerror.");AdvisoryCommitteeontheFederalRules d+J'/ ofCivilProcedure,ReportoftheCivilRulesAdvisoryCommittee  6268(March14,2001),revisedJul.31,2001(modifyingRule51of  theFederalRulesofCivilProceduretoprovideforplainerror rX reviewofchallengestojuryinstructionswheretheclaimwasnot   properlypreserved).    ` Theavailabilityofqualifiedimmunityafteratrialis v \  alegalquestioninformedbythejury'sfindingsoffact,but "  ultimatelycommittedtothecourt'sjudgment.Indeed,wehave   recognizedthatacertainflexibilityexistsintheproceduresand z`  thatinanyeventthejudgeiscertainlynotobligedtosubmitthe &  ultimateissuetothejury.SeeSinghv.BlueCross/BlueShieldof  Mass.,308F.3d25,34(1stCir.2002);Swainv.Spinney,117F.3d ~d 1,10(1stCir.1997).Accordingly,therewasnoerror,letalone * plainerror,inthedistrictcourt'srefusaltosubmittheproposed  qualifiedimmunityinstructionstothejury. h  ` Defendantsalsocontendthatthecourtcommitted . reversibleerrorwhenitfailedtograntanewtrialorjudgment   notwithstandingtheverdictonthebasisofqualifiedimmunity.  l" Theyreinforcethissecondclaimoferrorwithtwolegalarguments. 2"$ First,theyassertthatthedistrictcourtmisappliedthesecond #& prongofthefamiliarthreeprongedqualifiedimmunitytest: %p!( 8 ` Determiningwhetherqualifiedimmunityis 6'#* availabletoaparticulardefendantata  (#+ particulartimerequiresatrifurcated ($, inquiry.Weask,first,whethertheplaintiff )%- hasallegedtheviolationofaconstitutional *t&. right.Ifso,wethenaskwhetherthe d+J'/ contoursoftherightweresufficiently :, (0 establishedatthetimeofthealleged  violation.Finally,weaskwhetheran  objectivelyreasonableofficialwouldhave  believedthattheactiontakenoromitted  violatedthatright.rX` x` x .Hatchv.Dept.forChildren,YouthandtheirFamilies,274F.3d12,   20(1stCir.2001).Defendantscontendthatthecourterroneously   characterizedthe"constitutionalright"atissueasplaintiffs' v \  rightnottobediscriminatedagainstonthebasisoftheir "  politicalbeliefsduringtheimplementationofthelayoffplan.   Theydecrytheexcessiveabstractnessofthis"right,"citing z`  languagefromtheSupremeCourt'sdecisioninAndersonv. &  Creighton,483U.S.635(1987):  8 ` Theoperationofthisstandarddepends ~d substantiallyuponthelevelofgeneralityat T: whichtherelevant"legalrule"istobe * identified....If[referringtotheright  todueprocessoflaw]thetestof"clearly  establishedlaw"weretobeappliedatthis  levelofgenerality,itwouldbearno h relationshiptothe"objectivelegal X> reasonableness"thatisthetouchstoneof . Harlow.Plaintiffswouldbeabletoconvert  theruleofqualifiedimmunitythatourcases   plainlyestablishintoaruleofvirtually ! unqualifiedliabilitysimplybyalleginga  l" violationofextremelyabstractrights.\!B#` x` x ЀId.at639;seeRiveraRamosv.Roman,156F.3d276,27980(1st #% Cir.1998).Itisdifficulttodivinefromdefendants'briefshow $ ' theywouldarticulatetherightatissuethepertinent `&F") discussionisgearedexclusivelytodemonstratingtheabsenceof  (#+ anyclearlyestablishedruleregulatingtheimplementationof )%- senioritybasedlayoffplans.Ofcourse,thisapproachcommitsthe d+J'/ Andersonfallacyinreversebyconstruingtherelevantrights/rules  withsuchspecificitythatthepredictablyscantjurisprudenceon  pointwouldneversatisfythe"clearlyestablished"threshold. rX  ` Intheend,theirargumentisunavailing.Theclearly   establishedlawbothinthiscircuitandbeyondprecludes   governmentofficialsfromdischargingcivilor"career"employees v \  forpoliticallymotivatedreasons.SeeBrantiv.Finkel,445U.S. "  507(1980);Elrodv.Burns,427U.S.347(1976);RoldanPlumey,115   F.3dat6566;JirauBernalv.Agrait,37F.3d1,3(1stCir. z`  1994).Thecomplexityofthemunicipality'sworkforcereduction &  plansuggeststhatitwasconceivedbytheAdjuntasmunicipal  assemblyasapoliticallyneutralmeansofrespondingtothecity's ~d fiscalcrisis.Yetthejurycouldreasonablyhavefoundthatwhile * thePlanitselfwaspoliticallyneutral,themethodof  implementationrevealedthedefendants'discriminatoryintent. h  ` Defendantsalsoraiseachallengeunderthethirdprong . ofHatch,relyingonstipulatedfactspaintingableakpictureof   themunicipality'sfinancialstatus,seesupra,andtheconclusory  l" assertionthat"theaforementionedsetofcircumstancesclearly 2"$ demonstratethatdefendantsactedwithinthereasonableboundaries #& oftheirdutiesunderthelayoffplan."Inlimitingtheirfocus %p!( totheobjectivecircumstancessurroundingtheimplementationof 6'#* thePlan,defendantsmisconceivethesalientinquiryunderthe ($, thirdprongofthequalifiedimmunityanalysis.Asweobservedin *t&. Tangv.StateofRhodeIsland,120F.3d325(1stCir.1997): :, (0 8 ` Theobjectivetestfocusesonthe  reasonablenessoftheofficial'sconduct  independentofmotive.Itisrarelygoingto  bemanifestlyunreasonable,judgedapartfrom  motive,to[takecertainactionagainst]an rX employee.Butbecauseofspecial H. constitutionalorstatutoryprotections,some   motivescanconvert[thosedecisions]into   causesofaction. ` x` x EId.at327(emphasisinoriginal).Indeed,werecognizedin v \  AcevedoIIthatillicitmotiveisthetouchstoneofapolitical "  discriminationclaim:"Theplaintiffsallegethattheywere   terminatedbecauseoftheirpoliticalaffiliation,aconstitutional z`  claimthathasnomeaningabsenttheallegationofimpermissible &  motivation."AcevedoII,204F.3dat11;seeStellav.Kelley,63  F.3d71,7475(1stCir.1995).Here,asplaintiffspointout, ~d "thejuryverdictnecessarilyrejectedtheclaimthattheseniority * systemwasapoliticallyneutralmethodforimplementingtheLayoff  Plan." h  ` Finally,defendantsinsistthattheSupremeCourt's . decisioninSaucierv.Katz,533U.S.194(2001),establishes"a   marginforerrorsandexpandsthezoneofprotectionin  l" discretionarydeterminationswhereanofficialreasonablybelieved 2"$ thatheactedreasonablyalthough[he]waslaterfoundtohave #& actedunlawfully."Thedistrictcourtaptlydisposedofthis %p!( argumentbelowbydistinguishingSaucieronitsfacts: 6'#* 8 ` Saucierinvolvedamilitarypoliceofficer's ($, mistakenbutreasonablebeliefthatexcessive )%- forcewasneededtoprotecttheVicePresident *t&. oftheUnitedStatesfromanunknown d+J'/ demonstrator.Becausehighsecuritymeasures :, (0 areneededtosafeguardaUnitedStatesVice  President,becausethedegreeofdangerposed  bythedemonstratorwasunknown,andbecause  lawenforcementofficersareusuallyrequired  tomakesplitsecond,lifeanddeath rX decisions,theCourtheldthattheofficer H. actedreasonably...MayorVeraMonroigand   IrmaGonzalezactedovera10monthperiodof   time.Astheyhadalongperiodwithinwhich   toassessthesituation,theprobabilitythat    theycouldhavemadea"reasonablemistake"as v \  inthecaseofanofficerguardingtheVice L 2  President,islargelydiminished." ` x` x )Accordingly,weconcludethatthedistrictcourtdidnoterrin   denyingdefendants'postverdictrequestforqualifiedimmunity. z`  2.Sufficiencyoftheevidence &   ` Afterthejuryissueditsverdict,defendantsmovedfor  judgmentasamatteroflawunderRule50(b),orinthealternative ~d foranewtrialpursuanttoRule59.Thedistrictcourtdenied * bothavenuesofrelief,anddefendantsappealed.Apartyseeking  recourseundereitherrulefacesanuphillbattle: h D:8 ` Inreviewingthedenialofamotionfor . directedverdictorforjudgment  notwithstandingtheverdict"wemustexamine   theevidenceinthelightmostfavorableto ! theplaintiffanddeterminewhetherthereare  l" factsandinferencesreasonablydrawnfrom \!B# thosefactswhichleadtobutoneconclusion 2"$ Єthatthereisatotalfailureofevidenceto #% proveplaintiff'scase."#&` x` x uGutierrezRodriguezv.Cartagena,882F.2d553,558(1stCir.1989) %p!( (quotingMayov.SchoonerCapitalCorp.,825F.2d566,568(1st 6'#* Cir.1987)).WhenconsideringaRule59(a)motion,"adistrict ($, courtmaysetasideajury'sverdictandorderanewtrialonlyif *t&. theverdictisagainstthedemonstrableweightofthecredible :, (0 evidenceorresultsinablatantmiscarriageofjustice."Sanchez  v.PuertoRicoOilCo.,37F.3d712,717(1stCir.1994).   ` Asthedistrictcourtablyexplains,sufficientevidence rX wasbeforethejurytosupportitsfindingsfortheplaintiffs.   SeeAcevedoGarcia,213F.Supp.2dat4652.Regardingthe   politicaldiscriminationclaims,theplaintiffstestifiedthatthey v \  werepoliticallyactivemembersoftheNPPandthattheVera "  Administrationknewoftheirpoliticalaffiliationpriorto   dischargingthem.Plaintiffsalsoproducedevidencesupporting z`  theirtheorythattheterminationplanwasimplementedinaway &  designedtotargetmembersoftheNPPwhilesparingmostmembersof  thePDP.Further,thejuryheardevidencethatthevastmajority ~d ofpeoplehiredwithextramunicipalfundsbelongedtothePDP. * Thedistrictcourtalsodetailstheevidencebeforethejury  regardingthefourplaintiffswhosuccessfullymountedpolitical h harassmentclaims.SeeAcevedoGarcia,213F.Supp.2dat4849. .  ` Defendantsareunderstandablydisappointedthatthejury   didnotagreewiththeirversionoffactsinthiscase.But,as  l" explainedabove,courtswillonlysetasidejuryverdictsinvery 2"$ unusualcircumstances.Afterviewingthefactsinthelightmost #& favorabletoplaintiffs,aswellasconsideringtheinferencesthat %p!( mayreasonablybedrawnfromthosefacts,wecannotsaythat"there 6'#* isatotalfailureofevidencetoproveplaintiff'scase."Mayo, ($,  825F.2dat568.Norareweconvincedthatthejuryverdict *t&. represents"ablatantmiscarriageofjustice"warrantingjudicial  interference.Sanchez,37F.3dat717.   3.Damages rX  ` Rule59(e)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure   permitsapartyaggrievedbythejuryverdicttomove"toalteror   amendthejudgment"withintendaysafterentryofjudgment.Fed. v \  R.Civ.P.59(e).PursuanttoRule59(e),thedefendantsfileda "  timelymotionseekingreductionorremittiturofthedamageaward   foreachplaintiff.Wheredefendantsproperlypreserveachallenge z`  totheamountofcompensatorydamagesawardedbythejury,"our &  inquiryislimitedtodetermining'whetherthetrialcourtabused  itsdiscretioninrefusingtosetasidetheverdictasexcessive.'" ~d Anthonyv.G.M.D.AirlineServs.,Inc.,17F.3d490,493(1stCir. * 1994)(quotingMcDonaldv.Fed.Labs.,Inc.,724F.2d243,246(1st  Cir.1984)).Thereviewofapreservedchallengetoapunitive h damagesaward"isdenovo,andtheawardwillstandunlesswefind . it'certain'thattheamountinquestionexceedsthatnecessaryto   punishanddetertheallegedmisconduct."Romanov.UHaulInt'l,  l" 233F.3d655,672(1stCir.2000). 2"$  ` Thesedeferentialstandardsofreviewimplicitly #& recognizethat"[t]ranslatinglegaldamageintomoneydamages %p!( especiallyincaseswhichinvolvefewsignificantitemsof 6'#* measurableeconomiclossisamatterpeculiarlywithinthe ($, jury'sken."GutierrezRodriguezv.Cartagena,882F.2d553,577 *t&. (1stCir.1989);seeBrownv.FreedmanBakingCo.,810F.2d6,11 :, (0 (1stCir.1987)("Werarelywilloverridethejury'sjudgmenton  theappropriateamountofdamagestobeawarded.");Segalv.  GilbertColorSystems,Inc.,746F.2d78,81(1stCir.1984)("This rX courthasconsistentlydeclinedtoplayMondaymorningquarterback   inreviewingajury'sassessmentofdamages.").Consequently,   defendantsbeartheonerousburdenofprovingtooursatisfaction v \  thatthedamageawardwas"grosslyexcessive,inordinate,shocking "  totheconscienceofthecourt,orsohighthatitwouldbea   denialofjusticetopermitittostand."Correav.HospitalSan z`  Francisco,69F.3d1184,1197(1stCir.1995)(quotingSegal,746 &  F.2dat81).   ` Thedistrictcourtissuedastrongendorsementofthe ~d juryverdictinrejectingdefendants'Rule59(e)motionbelow: * 8 ` TheCourtbelievesthattheJuryconsidered  alloftheevidencepresented,andfashioned  theirawardinlightofPlaintiffs'economic h damages,anddamagesresultingfrompainand X> suffering.Simplyput,theverdictwasnot . againsttheweightoftheevidence.  Consideringthesignificantdisruptionswhich   Defendants'actionscausedthePlaintiffs' ! lifestyles,theCourtdoesnotfindthatthe  l" compensatoryandpunitivedamagesawardfor \!B# eachindividualPlaintiff...isgrossly 2"$ excessiveorinordinate.Further,after #% weighingtheevidence,theCourtfindsthat #& thedamageawardalsodoesnotshockthe $ ' conscience.L%p!(` x` x AcevedoGarcia,213F.Supp.2dat53.Onappeal,defendants 6'#* reiteratetheirobjectionstothejuryverdictasexcessive.They ($, alsoraiseanewargumentthatwasnotsubmittedtothedistrict *t&. courtnamely,thatthejury'sawardofcompensatorydamagesfor :, (0 dueprocessviolationswasduplicativeofthepolitical  discriminationdamagesalsoawardedaspartoftheverdict.   ` a.Duplicatedamages rX  ` Thisargument,whichispremisedonanerroroflaw,has   moreforcethandefendants'factuallygroundedclaimofexcessive   damages.Beforeaddressingtheconsequencesofdefendants'failure v \  topreservethisargumentbelow,weexaminethemeritsoftheclaim "  itself.    ` Bywayofbackground,thejuryawardwasbrokendowninto z`  fivecomponentsfortheeightplaintiffsallegingdiscrimination, &  dueprocessviolationsandharassment:   n(83"e;"  e;C0 ` 2(  1  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Dueprocessviolations;e;C݌~d (# (# Ќ  "e;"  e;J0 ` 2(  2  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Politicaldiscriminationintheformof T: harassment;e;Jw݌* (# (# Ќ  "e;"  e;u 0 ` 2(  3  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Politicaldiscriminationresultingindismissal  causingpainandsuffering;e;u  ݌ (# (# Ќ  "e;"  e;!0 ` 2(  4  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Politicaldiscriminationresultingindismissal  causinglossofearnings;ande;!!݌n (# (# Ќ  "e;"  e; #0 ` 2(  5  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Punitivedamagese; #6#݌dJ (# (# Ќ  pForthetwelveplaintiffsallegingonlypoliticaldiscrimination  anddueprocessinjuries,thejuryawardcontainedalloftheabove ! componentsexcept(2).p  #  7      ׀ h!N# gO$ ge g   ` Defendantspointoutthatplaintiffs'Fourteenth e Amendmentdueprocessclaimsarisefromthemunicipality'sfailure  tooffertheclaimantsalternativestooutrighttermination.The X consequencesofthisdenialofdueprocessincludethenormal i  injuriesassociatedwithremovalfromasecurejoblost   earnings,painandsufferingassociatedwithunemployment,lost  \  futureincome,etc.Defendantscontendthattheiralleged m  violationofdefendants'FirstAmendmentrightsresultedin   preciselythesameharms.Becausethejuryessentiallycompensated `  plaintiffsfortheirunemploymentinjuriestwiceonceundera q  FirstAmendmenttheoryandonceunderaFourteenthAmendmenttheory  Єdefendantsarguethatthecourterredasamatteroflawin d enteringjudgmentona"doubleaward"forthesameinjury. u  ` Itiswellsettledthatdoubleawardsforthesameinjury ! areimpermissible.Lewisv.Kendrick,944F.2d949,954(1stCir. h 1991);Freemanv.PackageMach.Co.,865F.2d1331,1345(1stCir. y 1988).Moreover,Congressintendedforcompensatorydamagesin %  section1983casestoremedyonlyactualinjuriescausedbya  l" deprivationofconstitutionalrights,andnot"theabstract'value' }"$  of[]dueprocessandFirstAmendmentrights."MemphisCommunity )$& Sch.Dist.v.Stachura,477U.S.299,313(1986).TheSupreme e CourtelaboratedinStachurathat   8 ` when1983plaintiffsseekdamagesfor X violationsofconstitutionalrights,thelevel . ofdamagesisordinarilydeterminedaccording i  toprinciplesderivedfromthecommonlawof ?  torts....Congressadoptedthiscommonlaw   systemofrecoverywhenitestablished    liabilityfor"constitutionaltorts."  \  Consequently,"thebasicpurpose"of1983  2  damagesis"tocompensatepersonsforinjuries m  thatarecausedbythedeprivationof C  constitutionalrights." ` x` x ,Id.at30607(quotingCareyv.Piphus,435U.S.247,254(1978)). 6 Consequently,anyduplicationproblemcannotberesolvedby G conceptualizingFirstAmendmentandFourteenthAmendmentviolations  asdistinct"injuries"warrantingseparatecompensation. :  ` Indefendingthejuryverdict,plaintiffsarguethatthe K damagesawardedfortheFirstAmendmentviolationswere  retrospectiveinnature,designedtocompensatetheclaimantsfor > wageslostfromthedateofdismissaltothedateoftheverdict. O Bycontrast,thecompensatorydamagesawardedfordefendants' !  FourteenthAmendmentdueprocessviolations~  #  8      ׀wereforwardlooking !B# andintendedtoremedytheplaintiffs'lostpropertyrightsl  #  9      ׀in e  theircareeremploymentpositions.Specifically,plaintiffsargue  that X 8 ` becausecareeremploymentcarrieswithitan i  expectancyofcontinuedincomeprospectively ?  (frontpay),retirementandmedicalinsurance   (lostbenefits),andthesecurityof    continuingemploymentterminableonlyfor  \  cause,adeprivationofthatrightpermitsan  2  additionalaward.Thisawardislegally m  distinguishableinthatitrepresents C  compensationforprospectivelosses,fromthe   dateofthetrialforward,whereaspolitical   discriminationdamagesarecalculated `  retroactivelyfromthedateoftrial.6` x` x 4Weagreewithplaintiffsthatbothfrontandbackpayarevalid G elementsofacompensatorydamageawardundersection1983.  Indeed,"compensatorydamagesmayincludenotonlyoutofpocket : lossandothermonetaryharms,butalsosuchinjuriesas K 'impairmentofreputation...,personalhumiliation,andmental  anguishandsuffering.'"Stachura,477U.S.at307(quotingGertz > v.RobertWelch,Inc.,418U.S.323,350(1974));seeDavetv. O Maccarone,973F.2d22,29(1stCir.1992). !  ` Insupportoftheirargumentthatthejuryapportioned !B# itscompensatorydamageawardsbetweentheFirstAmendmentand S#% FourteenthAmendmentviolations,plaintiffsreferustothe $ ' "PoliticalDiscrimination"sectionofthespecialverdictform, e whichdirectsthejuryto"indicatetheamountofbackpaytodate  [plaintiff]shouldreceive"ifpoliticalaffiliationwasa X substantialormotivatingfactorinhis/herdismissal(emphasis i  added).Yetthereisnoanalogousreferencetofrontpayineither   thejuryinstructionsorthedueprocesssectionoftheverdict  \  form,whichsimplyprovidesthat"[u]nderthelawyoumaychooseto m  awarddamagesforaviolationofdueprocess.Ifyouanswered   'YES'tothepreviousquestion[addressingliability],statethe `  amountofdamagesthisPlaintiffshouldbeawardedfrom q  [defendants]"(emphasisadded).   ` Moreover,plaintiffs'theoryofapportionmentarguably d suffersfromanotherflaw.Ifthejuryhadfounddefendantsguilty u ofeitheradueprocessviolationoraFirstAmendmentviolation, ! butnotboth,plaintiffswouldstillbeentitledtofrontpay,back h pay,andpainandsuffering,becausethesingularviolationwould y stillhaveresultedinthelossofcareeremploymentandany %  secondaryharmsflowingfromthatloss.Putdifferently,nothing  l" inherentinthenatureofadueprocessviolationlimitsthe }"$ resultingeconomicinjurytofrontpay,andnothinginherentinan )$& actofpoliticaldiscriminationinflictsaninjurythatislimited %p!( tobackpay. '#* e ` Finally,wenotethatthecourt'sduplicativedamage -)$, instructionwaswordedsoastosuggestthattherelevant"injury" *t&. qOa( q q  thatcouldnotbedoublycompensatedwastheviolationofa e constitutionalright,ratherthananactuallossorharm.  8 ` Inawardingdamagesyoushouldbecarefulnot X toawardduplicatedamages.Plaintiffsare . entitledtocollectfullcompensationfor i  theirinjuriesifproved,buttheymustnot ?  collectmorethanonceforthesamewrong..   ..Again,eachplaintiffisentitledto    collectfullcompensationforhisorher  \  injurybuttheplaintiffmustnotcollectmore  2  thanonceforthesamewrong.m ` -` - (D(emphasisadded).Thecourt'suseoftheterm"wrong,"readin   conjunctionwithaspecialverdictformdividedintoseparate `  sectionsforeachconstitutionalviolation,mayhaveledthejury q  toconceptualizetheterm"injury"astheviolationofa  constitutionalrightvelnon,ratherthananactuallosscausedby d theviolationofthatright.SeeStachura,477U.S.at30607; u Carey,435U.S.at254.Possibly,intheabsenceofmoredetailed ! instructionssupportingplaintiffs'frontpay/backpaytheory,the h jurymayhaveerroneouslyawardedduplicativedamagesby y compensatingplaintiffsforthesameactuallossesunderbothadue %  processandpoliticaldiscriminationtheoryofliability.We  l" acknowledge,therefore,thatthelackofclarityinthecourt's }"$ duplicativedamagesinstructionwasobviouserrorwhichmay )$& potentiallyhaveresultedinanimproperawardofdoubledamages. %p!(  ` Wemustnowdecidewhetherdefendantsareentitledto '#* reliefinthefaceofthiserror.Defendantswereonnotice -)$, throughouttheproceedingsthatplaintiffswereseekingrecoveryfor *t&. bothdueprocessviolationsandpoliticaldiscrimination.Tothe e extentthatajuryawardonbothclaimswouldbeduplicative,the  properpracticeistoensurethattheverdictformisstructuredso X astoallowthejurytorecompensetheplaintiffs'injuriesjust i  once.AsweobservedinBrittonv.Murphy,196F.3d24,32(1st   Cir.1999):  \  8 ` Theproblemofguardingagainstdouble m  recoveryisafamiliaronewhenmultiple C  claimsexistbutseparatedamagesoneach   wouldbepartlyorwhollyduplicative.Ifthe   partiesexplicitlyagreethatthedamages `  shouldbethesameoneachclaim,thenitis 6 easyenoughtoconstructspecial q  interrogatoriesthatidentifyseparatebases G forliabilitybuthaveonlyasinglelinefor  damages.Ontheotherhand,whentheamounts  awardedcouldconceivablydifferdependingon d theclaimbutmayalsoinvolvesomeoverlap, : verdictformssometimesrequireaseparate u specificationofdamagesforeachclaimon K whichthejurydeterminesliability,leaving ! ittothejudgetomaketheappropriate  adjustmentstoavoiddoublerecovery.h` -` -  preclusiontotiethedefendants'handswithanadverselydecided O issuefromapreviouscase,theuseofcollateralestoppelisdeemed !  offensive.AstheSupremeCourtrecognized,theoffensiveuseof !B# nonmutualcollateralraisesspecialconcerns: S#% 8  8   First,offensiveuseofcollateralestoppel $ ' doesnotpromotejudicialeconomyinthesame %p!( mannerasdefensiveusedoes.Defensiveuseof &F") collateralestoppelprecludesaplaintifffrom '#* relitigatingidenticalissuesbymerely W(#+ "switchingadversaries."Thusdefensive -)$, collateralestoppelgivesaplaintiffastrong *%- incentivetojoinallpotentialdefendantsin *t&. thefirstactionifpossible.Offensiveuseof +J'/ collateralestoppel,ontheotherhand,creates e preciselytheoppositeincentive.Sincea ; plaintiffwillbeabletorelyonaprevious  judgmentagainstadefendantbutwillnotbe  boundbythatjudgmentifthedefendantwins, X theplaintiffhaseveryincentivetoadopta . "waitandsee"attitude,inthehopethatthe i  firstactionbyanotherplaintiffwillresult ?  inafavorablejudgment.Thusoffensiveuseof   collateralestoppelwilllikelyincreaserather    thandecreasethetotalamountoflitigation,  \  sincepotentialplaintiffswillhaveeverything  2  togainandnothingtolosebynotintervening m  inthefirstaction. C   m Asecondargumentagainstoffensiveuseof   collateralestoppelisthatitmaybeunfairto   adefendant.Ifadefendantinthefirstaction `  issuedforsmallornominaldamages,hemay 6 havelittleincentivetodefendvigorously, q  particularlyiffuturesuitsarenot G foreseeable.Allowingoffensivecollateral  estoppelmayalsobeunfairtoadefendantif  thejudgmentrelieduponasabasisforthe d estoppelisitselfinconsistentwithoneor : morepreviousjudgmentsinfavorofthe u defendant.Stillanothersituationwhereit K mightbeunfairtoapplyoffensiveestoppelis ! wherethesecondactionaffordsthedefendant  proceduralopportunitiesunavailableinthe h firstactionthatcouldreadilycausea > differentresult.y x x ParklaneHosieryCo.v.Shore,439U.S.322,32931(1979)(internal %  citationsandfootnotesomitted).Notwithstandingtheseconcerns,  l" theSupremeCourtcompleteditsbreakwithtraditionalcollateral }"$ estoppeldoctrineinParklaneHosierybyaccordingdistrictcourts )$& broaddiscretiontoapplynonmutualoffensivecollateralestoppel: %p!( 8  8   Wehaveconcludedthatthepreferableapproach '#* fordealingwiththeseproblemsinthefederal W(#+ courtsisnottoprecludetheuseofoffensive -)$, collateralestoppel,buttogranttrialcourts *%- broaddiscretiontodeterminewhenitshouldbe *t&. applied.Thegeneralruleshouldbethatin +J'/ caseswhereaplaintiffcouldeasilyhave e joinedintheearlieractionorwhere,either ; forthereasonsdiscussedaboveorforother  reasons,theapplicationofoffensiveestoppel  wouldbeunfairtoadefendant,atrialjudge X shouldnotallowtheuseofoffensive . collateralestoppel.i  x x Id.at331.       Significantly,theSupremeCourt'sapprehensiveregardfor  \  nonmutualoffensivecollateralestoppelisrootedinconsiderations m  thatareinappositeinauniquecasesuchasthiswhereacourt   appliescollateralestoppeltopiecesofaseveredactionoverwhich `  itispresiding.Inthecaseatbar,thedistrictcourtexercised q  itsdiscretionunderRule21tomandatetheseveranceofplaintiffs  intofourtrialgroups,therebyprohibitingthesixtytwoplaintiffs d ingroups2,3and4fromvoluntarilyjoiningthefirstlitigation. u Oncetheactionwassevered,theprospectofmultipletrialswas ! eminentlyforeseeabletothedefendants,ifnotexplicitlyassured. h Moreover,withoneeyeontheimpendingthreetrials,andtheother y ontheirpotentiallyimmenseexposuretothefirstgroupoftwenty %  plaintiffs,seesupra,thedefendantshadeverypossibleincentive  l" tovigorouslylitigatetheissueofliabilityinthefirstaction. }"$ Seeid.Thecontentiousproceedingsbelow,coupledwiththecopious )$& materialsfiledbyappellantsinthisappeal,confirmthat %p!( defendantszealouslycontested(andcontinuetocontest)theissue '#* ofliabilitytothefirstplaintiffgroup.Finally,becausethe -)$, courtseveredtheproceedingsontheeveoftrial,defendantshave *t&. fullyavailedthemselvesofdiscoveryandotherpretrialprocedures e withrespecttoalleightytwoplaintiffs.Accordingly,thereis  littleriskthatthesubsequentproceedingswill"afford[]the X defendant[s]proceduralopportunitiesunavailableinthefirst i  actionthatcouldreadilycauseadifferentresult."Id.The   districtcourt'sstatedintenttopresideoverallfourtrials  \  furthersuggeststhattrialandposttrialproceduresforthe m  remainingsixtytwoplaintiffswillnotvarysubstantiallyfromthe   proceduralopportunitiesavailableinthefirsttrial. `  Ѐ 6     Havingaddressedthebackgroundconcernsraisedbythe q  applicationofnonmutualoffensivecollateralestoppel,weturnour  attentiontothemostimportantquestionwhetherdefendants d "receivedafullandfairopportunitytolitigatetheirclaims"in u thefirsttrial.ParklaneHosiery,439U.S.at332.Ourprior ! jurisprudenceenumeratesfourfactorsthatweconsiderinthis h regard: y   (1)0  anidentityofissues(thatis,thattheissuesoughtto %  beprecludedisthesameasthatwhichwasinvolvedin ! thepriorproceeding), l" (# (# ! !"e;"  e;0  2(  2  )3  0 (#(#  actualityoflitigation(thatis,thatthepointwas }"$ actuallylitigatedintheearlierproceeding),e;݌S#% (# (# Ќ  "e;"  e;0  2(  3  )3  0 (#(#  finalityoftheearlierresolution(thatis,thatthe $ ' issuewasdeterminedbyavalidandbindingfinal %p!( judgmentororder),ande;݌&F") (# (# Ќ  "e;"  e;`0  2(  4  )3  0 (#(#  thecentralityoftheadjudication(thatis,thatthe W(#+ determinationoftheissueinthepriorproceedingwas -)$,  essentialtothefinaljudgmentororder).e;`݌*%- (# (# Ќ  gFaiginv.Kelly,184F.3d67,78(1stCir.1999);seeGrellav. e  SalemFiveCentSav.Bank,42F.3d26,30(1stCir.1994);NLRBv.  DonnaLeeSportswearCo.,836F.2d31,34(1stCir.1987). X Ѐ    tXXXXOurfocushereisconfinedtofactor(2)actualityof i  litigation.Tosatisfythisfactor,thepartyseekingtoimpose   issuepreclusionmustdemonstratethattheissuetobegiven  \  preclusiveeffectwasactuallylitigatedinthepriorproceeding.u  #  14      ׀ m  Withoutexcludingthepossibilityofotherproblemswiththescope   ofthecourt'scollateralestoppelorder,wecitebywayof `  illustrationthepoliticaldiscriminationclaimsofplaintiffs. q  ThoseFirstAmendmentclaimsimplicatetheburdenshiftingframework  setforthinMt.HealthyCitySchoolDist.Bd.ofEduc.v.Doyle, d 429U.S.274,287(1977).TosatisfythefirstprongoftheMt. u Healthyframework,plaintiffsmustdemonstratethattheyengagedin ! constitutionallyprotectedactivities,andthatthisprotected h conductwasasubstantialormotivatingfactorinanemployer's y adverseemploymentaction.Ifplaintiffssatisfythefirstprong,#XXXtXg#tXXXX e thesecondprongofMt.Healthyshiftstheburdentodefendantto  prove"byapreponderanceoftheevidence"thattheplaintiffwould X havebeensubjecttotheadverseemploymentactevenifhehadnot i  engagedintheprotectedconduct.Id.at278;Lewis,321F.3dat   219.  \      Therecordindicatesthateightytwoplaintiffsbrought m  claimsagainstthedefendants,butthemunicipalityonlymade   seventysevennewhiresovertherelevantperiod.Accordingly,it `  standstoreasonthatnoteveryplaintiffwassubstitutedforona q  onetoonebasis.Morefundamentally,applicationoftheMt.  Healthydefensenecessarilyvarieswiththecircumstancesofthe d individualplaintiffs.Certainplaintiffsmayhaveheldmunicipal u positionsthatweresosuperfluousorduplicativeoftheduties ! assignedtootheremployeesthatdefendantscouldreasonablyargue h thattheseplaintiffswouldhavebeenterminatedregardlessoftheir y politicalaffiliation.Putdifferently,thedefendantsmightbe %  abletoestablishthatthepositionofcertainmunicipalemployees  l" weresufficientlyprecariousthattheywouldhavebeeneliminated }"$ underaproperlymotivatedorimproperlymotivatedimplementation )$& oftheplan.Thiscontentionhasneveractuallybeenlitigated %p!( becauseitisnecessarilyuniquetothecircumstancesofthe '#* particularplaintiffsinvolvedinTrial2.Yetthesecondclause -)$, ofthethirdissuedesignatesforpreclusiveeffectthe *t&. "established"factthat"otherindividualswereemployedtoperform e theirdutiesunderdifferenttitle,andotherdifferentprograms,  inviolationofthelaw."Inourview,thisrulingrunsafoulof X theactuallitigationrequirement. i      Ourrulingisnotintendedtosuggestthatanyflawsin   thecollateralestoppelorderarelimitedtothesecondclauseof  \  thethirdissue.Havingidentifiedthisproblem,however,wecannot m  goontoapproveeveninpartacollateralestoppelorderthat   purportstoprecludeanyliabilitydefenseinTrial2.Whereeven `  oneissueofliabilitymustbemadeavailabletodefendantsinthe q  secondtrial,grantingpreclusiveeffecttotheotherissuesmaynot  resultinefficiencygainsbecauselitigationofthe"live"issue d mayrequireintroductionofsomeofthesameevidencepertinentto u theestoppedissues.See18AWright,Miller&Cooper4465.3("The ! needtorelitigateindividualissuesthatoverlapthecommonissues h mayprovideaspecialreasontodenypreclusionlittleifany y trialtimewillbespared..."). %      Still,forthereasonsenumeratedinthepreceding  l" backgrounddiscussion,weacknowledgethatnonmutualoffensive }"$ collateralestoppelmaywellbeausefulandappropriatetrial )$& managementdeviceinthesecondtrial.Ourrulingisnotintended %p!( todiscourageitsapplication.However,anyrenewedconsideration '#* ofthatdoctrinebythetrialcourtmustbegroundedinthe -)$, proceedingsofTrial2.Specifically,thejudgeandtheparties *t&. shouldrevisitthecourseofproceedingsinTrial1,andtheissues e andproposedproofinTrial2.Thedefendantsandthesecond  plaintiffgroupshouldthenhaveanopportunitytobriefandargue X thequestionofhowthedoctrineofnonmutualoffensivecollateral i  estoppelshouldbefairlyappliedinlightofthoseconsiderations.   Atthisjuncture,andatthisremovefromanimpendingsecondtrial,  \  wecannotdeterminewiththenecessarycertitudethatdefendants m  havehadafullandfairopportunitytolitigatealltherelevant   dimensionsoftheirliabilitydefense.Accordingly,wemustvacate `  thecourt'scollateralestoppelorder.#XXXtX# q    IV.       Theuniquecircumstancesofthiscasepresentedthe  districtcourtwithanumberofcomplexquestionsinareasthathave , previouslyreceivedlittleattentioninthiscircuit.Thecourt = correctlyresolvedmostoftheseissuesincomprehensivewritten  decisionsthatgreatlyaidedourreviewonappeal.Thecourtalso 0 acquitteditselfadmirablyinmanagingthisdifficultlitigation. A  Theerrorswehavecitedinnowaydetractfromouradmirationfor  " andappreciationofthecourt'swork. "4$     We vacate thedistrictcourt'scollateralestoppelorder. E$& Inallotherrespectswe affirm .  &!(     Soordered. M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  M