How has the Court treated the issue of whether the word "supervisor" was in the original proposed jury instruction?

Preliminarily, we reject respondent's contention that this issue was waived because the appellate record does not contain the form of the original proposed jury instruction. It may be true that it is unclear whether appellant originally proposed that the instruction include the word "manager," as opposed to the similar word ("supervisor") that was ultimately included in the instruction. However, it is abundantly clear from a review of the reporter's transcript that appellant's counsel objected to language regarding whether the supervisor be a decision maker, which is the gravamen of her argument on appeal. By objecting to the phrase that appellant complains about on appeal, appellant certainly did not "invite" any error, as respondent suggests. In any event, no objection is necessary to preserve a challenge that a jury instruction misstates the law in any event. (Code Civ. Proc., 647; Lund v. San Joaquin Valley Railroad (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1, 7.)