Draft Jury Instructions

---
name: draft-jury-instructions
task_id: litigation-dispute-resolution/draft-jury-instructions
description: Drafting proposed jury instructions for retaliation, whistleblower, and implied contract claims requires adapting pattern instructions to the claims and issues remaining after prior rulings, pairing each instruction with a special verdict form question, and flagging legal disputes in a cover memo.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Draft Proposed Jury Instructions for Title VII Retaliation, Ohio Whistleblower, and Implied Contract Claims

## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable)

- Confirm the live claims, defenses, and any resolved issues from prior rulings before drafting anything.
- Draft for the defendant’s trial posture, not the pleadings posture; instructions must track what the jury will actually decide.
- If multiple claims remain, separate them cleanly and identify whether any claim requires a distinct causation, damages, or burden-of-proof formulation.
- If the court has issued a standing order or model-format requirement, conform to it unless a tailored deviation is necessary and supported.
- Treat the cover memo and verdict form as supporting deliverables; the instructions are the primary work product.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Tracking pattern language mechanically without narrowing it to the surviving issues and prior rulings.
- Drafting instructions that blur liability, causation, and damages into a single undifferentiated charge.
- Omitting the special verdict path that tells the jury which findings are necessary and when later questions become reachable.
- Failing to distinguish statutory retaliation, whistleblower, and implied-contract theories by their separate elements and remedies.
- Writing a perfunctory cover memo instead of a legal memo that identifies disputed language, the governing authorities, and the reasons for the proposed wording.
- Using conclusory statements about the law without naming the controlling authority that supports the instruction.
- Including remedial concepts in the liability charge that belong only in a damages or post-liability instruction.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- Start from the applicable pattern instructions, then modify them only to match the claims, defenses, and evidentiary record remaining in the case.
- For Title VII retaliation, identify protected activity, employer knowledge, materially adverse action, and the required causal link under the governing standard.
- Protected activity should reflect the reasonable good-faith belief framework: the employee may be protected even if the complained-of conduct ultimately was not unlawful, so long as the belief was objectively reasonable.
- For retaliation causation, use the causation standard that controls the claim, and do not mix standards from other statutes or claim types.
- For Ohio whistleblower claims, track the statute’s own elements, notice requirements, and causation language as applied to the surviving theory.
- For implied contract claims based on handbook or policy language, instruct the jury to decide whether the language created a binding promise and whether the employer complied with any promised procedure.
- Damages must be tied to the specific theory being charged; do not collapse contract damages into statutory or tort damages.
- After-acquired evidence, if relevant at all, is remedial; do not inject it into the liability instruction unless the court has directed a separate issue.
- Statutory caps and other limitation rules are for the court or the remedy phase, not for disclosure as a jury ceiling unless the governing law requires it.
- Every legal proposition relied on should be anchored to controlling authority by name and section, rule, or leading case.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

- Identify each surviving claim and each distinct element the jury must find.
- For each claim, ask: what issue is genuinely disputed, what issue is already fixed, and what language best guides a lay jury without overstating the law?
- Draft one instruction per claim or per discrete doctrine, using plain language with precise legal content.
- Pair each instruction with a corresponding verdict-form question so the jury’s answers move logically from liability to any causation or damages question.
- Use sequential verdict questions so later questions are reached only if earlier ones are answered in the required way.
- If a claim has alternative theories or sub-issues, enumerate them first and then draft each instruction and verdict question against the full set rather than blending them.
- In the cover memo, explain each disputed instruction choice, identify the competing formulations, and state why the proposed wording is the better legal fit.
- Cite the rule, statute, regulation, or leading case for every important proposition in the instruction package.
- Check the charge for internal consistency: defined terms should be used the same way throughout, and burden language should not shift between claims.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable)

- Organize the charge so the jury can move from general instructions to claim-specific instructions, then to verdict questions, then to damages only if reached.
- Keep liability and remedy temporally distinct: first decide whether liability exists, then decide the consequences the law permits.
- If one claim depends on a factual predicate that overlaps another claim, preserve that relationship in the verdict form rather than assuming the jury will infer it.
- Where prior rulings have removed certain issues from the case, do not resurrect them in the instructions, even indirectly.
- If one theory is narrower than another, draft it narrowly; do not let broad language swallow the claim-specific elements.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Produce the proposed jury instructions as a standalone instruction set with numbered instructions and clear headings.
- Pair each instruction with a matching special verdict form question or subgroup of questions.
- Keep the verdict form sequenced and answer-driven, using yes/no questions and damages blanks only where the theory allows them.
- Draft the cover memo as a substantive legal memorandum organized by instruction number or topic, with the dispute, the governing authority, and the proposed resolution.
- Make the memo useful to the court: identify where the parties are likely to disagree, and state the legal basis for the defendant’s proposal concisely.
- Ensure the final files are named exactly `proposed-jury-instructions.docx` and `instruction-cover-memo.docx`.
- Before finishing, confirm that the instruction file is complete and operative, and that the memo exists as a separate non-empty document.