Golden

MEMORANDUM **

In 1998, plaintiffs moved for a contempt citation against certain defendants. Plaintiffs accused the defendants of concealing *119 the fact that certain male-dominated classes of workers had not been counted in computing compliance with a consent decree entered by the parties in 1988, and in securing a general release from plaintiffs in 1989. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion, and they appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Generally, we review a district court’s decision on a motion for contempt for abuse of discretion, and affirm the underlying factual findings in the absence of some clear error. See FTC v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir.1999). Likewise, where a district court decides whether a settlement agreement bars certain claims in light of the prior and current litigation, we “give great deference to the district court and reverse only for clear error.” Petro-Ventures, Inc. v. Takessian, 967 F.2d 1337, 1340 (9th Cir.1992). Questions concerning a district court’s interpretation of a consent decree are reviewed de novo, but deference to the district court’s construction is appropriate when the…