Baidehi Mukherjee v. The Childrens Mercy Hospital ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                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    [Unpublished]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-