The ?plaintiff ?in ?this ?case ?worked? for ?the ?Post Office.? ?She was eventually promoted to local postmaster.? ?She started making some changes, which were met with hostility by customers and postal-workers.?? The plaintiff perceived that some of? the? hostility ?was? due? to? her? foreign? national origin and accented English.?? She was eventually subject to discipline and suspension. ?She filed ?a claim under Title VII.? ?The jury found for the defendants.?? On appeal, the plaintiff successfully argued that the district court committed reversible error by not giving a jury instruction on the post- office?s duty to investigate an remedy actionable harassment by customers and community members. The panel held that an employer may be held liable based on a negligence ratification theory for the harassment of employees or others where if fails to investigate and remedy harassment of which it becomes aware.?? The panel rejected the argument that the plaintiff?s position as postmaster relieved her employer from its obligations.?? The case also features?? another?? twist?? on?? the?? mixed? ?motives morass. ?The district court instructed the jury that the plaintiff would prevail if discrimination was ?a motivating? factor,?? in? her? discipline? but? did? not give the same action defense instruction.?? Clearly confused, the plaintiff objected to this instruction, but not the employer. ?As the panel recognized, the plaintiff actually received the most favorable instructions possible.?? ?The opinion implicitly recognizes that there may be cases where a same- action instruction is not required and the only appropriate instruction is ?a motivating factor.?Galdamez v. Potter, No. 03-35682 (07/15/05; Hug, Berzon, Bybee).