Does Interrogatory 3 fail to list one of the elements of a retaliation claim?

Appellants also contend that Interrogatory 3 failed to list one of the elements of a retaliation claim. Appellants' challenge to Interrogatory 3 is deemed waived for failure to make a timely objection and because they expressly approved the interrogatories. Abou-Khadra v. Mahshie, 4 F.3d 1071, 1078 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1835 (1994). In any event, we find no error, for, as defendants concede, the trial court's instructions to the jury set forth this element.

Appellants argue that the trial court also erred in failing to instruct the jury as to a possible qualified immunity defense. Appellants were not entitled to such an instruction. Government officials exercising discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if the officer's conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Appellee alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 of sexual harassment and retaliation for exercising her free speech rights. The standards in both areas of the law were clearly established at the time the conduct occurred and a reasonable person would have known them. Appellants made no attempt to show extraordinary circumstances that might excuse them from knowledge of this law and were therefore not entitled to a qualified immunity instruction.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.