# Draft Jury Instructions > 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. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/draft-jury-instructions` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/draft-jury-instructions` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/draft-jury-instructions/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/draft-jury-instructions --- # 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.