Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03769/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03769-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arkansas Department of Education
Appellee
Cozetta Ann Ausler
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3769

___________

Cozetta Ann Ausler, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Arkansas Department of Education, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2005

Filed: March 10, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Cozetta Ann Ausler appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment on three of the claims in her employment-discrimination action against the

Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and the court’s subsequent grant of

judgment as a matter of law (JAML) on her remaining claim.

To the extent Ausler has properly challenged the grant of summary judgment,

see Harris v. Folk Constr. Co., 138 F.3d 365, 366-67 n.1 (8th Cir. 1998) (failure to

Appellate Case: 03-3769 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2005 Entry ID: 1877047 
-2-

assert in brief grounds for reversal of certain orders amounts to waiver of issues on

appeal), we agree with the district court that Ausler failed to create any trialworthy

issues on her claims of race-based hostile work environment, retaliation, or

defamation, see Burkett v. Glickman, 327 F.3d 658, 660 (8th Cir. 2003) (summary

judgment standard of review). We also agree with the district court that Ausler

offered insufficient evidence showing that race was a factor in the decision to change

her job duties. See Clark v. Long, 255 F.3d 555, 557 (8th Cir. 2001) (JAML standard

of review). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to

overrule Ausler’s objection to her former supervisor acting as ADE’s agent at trial.

See Fed. R. Evid. 615. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3769 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2005 Entry ID: 1877047