district court concluded that the 208 employees who had worked in the former Atlanta, Greenville, and Nashville regions constituted the appropriate decisional unit for the purposes of this case. The Appellees contend, however, that McDonald’s did not make its termination decisions from a single deci-sional unit. McDonald’s responds first that the Appellees waived this argument by failing to address the issue in response to McDonald’s petition for interlocutory appeal. McDonald’s, however, cites no authority for this proposition, which contradicts the principle that upon agreeing to address an interlocutory appeal, the courts may review all the matters in the district court’s order. E.g., Aldridge v. Lily-Tulip, Inc. Salary Ret. Plan Benefits Comm., 40 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). As the summary judgment order certified for
holding that where the district court decided two issues in the certified order but identified only the damages issue as the controlling question of law the court of appeals could nonetheless address the other issue holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial holding district court of appeal has jurisdiction to entertain states appeal from a nonfinal order of the county court certified to be of great public importance holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction holding that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal the scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district courts order not the certified question is brought before the court