Baidehi Mukherjee v. The Childrens Mercy Hospital

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: April 9, 2020
• Docket: 18-2731
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2731 ___________________________

Dr. Baidehi L. Mukherjee

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

The Childrens Mercy Hospital

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________

Submitted: April 3, 2020 Filed: April 9, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. In this employment discrimination action, Dr. Baidehi Mukherjee appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of partial summary judgment as to some of her claims, and entry of judgment upon an adverse jury verdict as to her remaining claims.

Mukherjee challenges the adverse grant of partial summary judgment. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we agree with the district court that Mukherjee’s claims under the Equal Pay Act and the Missouri Human Rights Act were untimely, and that she failed to substantiate her claims related to the alleged appropriation of her name. See Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas City, 214 F.3d 1011, 1016 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review).

Mukherjee also challenges several of the district court’s evidentiary rulings at trial and aspects of the jury instructions. We discern no reversible error in any of the district court’s evidentiary rulings, see Gee v. Pride, 992 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir. 1993) (district court’s decisions on admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed unless there is clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion; failure to object to evidence constitutes waiver of right to challenge evidence on appeal, absent plain error by trial court); and we conclude the court did not err, much less plainly err, in instructing the jury, see Lighting & Power Servs. v. Roberts, 354 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2004) (when party failed to object to jury instructions at trial, review was for plain error).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-