Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-18-02731/USCOURTS-ca8-18-02731-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Baidehi L. Mukherjee
Appellant
The Childrens Mercy Hospital
Appellee

Document Text:

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[Unpublished]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.

Appellate Case: 18-2731 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2020 Entry ID: 4900787
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.

______________________________

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

District of Missouri.

-2-

Appellate Case: 18-2731 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2020 Entry ID: 4900787