Katherine Townsend v. George Martine , 77 F. App'x 921 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 02-3993
    ___________
    Katherine Townsend,                *
    *
    Appellant,             *
    *
    Perry Ballard,                     *
    *
    Plaintiff,             *
    *
    v.                           *
    *
    George Martine, Individually;      *
    Kroger Food Stores,                *
    *
    Appellees.              *
    ___________
    Appeals from the United States
    No. 02-3995                      District Court for the Eastern
    ___________                      District of Arkansas.
    Katherine Townsend,                *   [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Plaintiff,             *
    *
    Perry Ballard,                     *
    *
    Appellant,             *
    *
    v.                           *
    *
    George Martine, Individually;      *
    Kroger Food Stores,                *
    *
    Appellees.             *
    ___________
    Submitted:    October 2, 2003
    Filed:    October 14, 2003
    ___________
    Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Katherine Townsend and Perry Ballard appeal the district court’s1 entry of
    judgment following an adverse jury verdict in their employment-discrimination
    action. For reversal, Townsend and Ballard argue the district court abused its
    discretion in excluding the testimony of their expert. Expert testimony is permissible
    under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 when “‘scientific, technical, or other specialized
    knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a
    fact in issue.’” See Nichols v. Am. Nat’l Ins. Co., 
    154 F.3d 875
    , 882-83 (8th Cir.
    1998) (quoting Rule 702). We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
    exclusion of the proffered expert testimony, because the existence of disparate
    treatment in this case boiled down to witness credibility and was within the jury’s
    competence. See 
    id. at 883
     (expert testimony “is not helpful if it draws inferences or
    reaches conclusions within the jury’s competence,” such as witness credibility);
    Lauzon v. Senco Prods., Inc., 
    270 F.3d 681
    , 686 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review;
    proponent of expert testimony must prove its admissibility by preponderance of
    evidence). Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-3993

Citation Numbers: 77 F. App'x 921

Filed Date: 10/14/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023