retaliatory harassment was “orchestrated by a cohort of different individuals.” Id. Because the offensive behavior of both parties did not stem from the same animus, the court of appeals viewed the sexual and retaliatory harassment as “separate and independent harms.” Id. That is the case here, where plaintiff asserts a sexual harassment claim against defendant Hernandez and a retaliatory harassment claim against defendant Rodriguez. It is clear that the alleged misdeeds of both parties are distinct, that they do not arise from the same animus, and therefore that they must not be condensed into a “mixed-motive” claim. Id. at 88. Moreover, plaintiff cannot prop up her failing sexual harassment claim with the more robust retaliatory harassment allegations against defendant Rodriguez. Id. (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, plaintiffs objections are
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that appellant cannot revive claim he abandoned before the district court holding that res judicata applies when the parties are identical or in privity the first suit proceeded to a final judgment on the merits and the second claim is based on the same set of transactional facts as the first holding that the plaintiff cannot rely on the second claim to revive the first holding that claims which were not presented to the motion court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal