Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01022/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01022-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sherry Ferguson
Appellant
Bill Ford
Appellee
Kenny Garrels
Appellee
General Electric
Appellee
Corky May
Appellee
Floyd Robertson
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 07-1022

________________

Sherry Ferguson,

Appellant,

v.

General Electric; Bill Ford; Floyd

Robertson; Kenny Garrels; Corky

May,

Appellees.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Southern District of Iowa.

 [UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: September 24, 2007

 Filed: October 3, 2007

________________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN and RILEY, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Sherry Ferguson appeals the district court's1

 grant of summary judgment to her

former employer, General Electric (GE), and four individual defendants in her Title

VII employment-discrimination suit alleging harassment and retaliation. See 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (2000). Upon careful de novo review, see Devin v. Schwan's Home

Appellate Case: 07-1022 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2007 Entry ID: 3358287
-2-

Serv., Inc., 491 F.3d 778, 785 (8th Cir. 2007), we find no reversible error of fact or

law. Ferguson failed to demonstrate that the harassment was based on her sex and that

her termination was causally linked to her protected conduct. See id. at 785, 788.

Furthermore, GE offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for Ferguson's

termination, and Ferguson failed to rebut this showing by demonstrating that GE's

reason was a mere pretext for discrimination. See Tenge v. Phillips Modern Ag Co.,

446 F.3d 903, 910 (8th Cir. 2006). We also conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Ferguson's motion to reopen the record. See Parton v.

White, 203 F.3d 552, 556 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 963 (2000) ("Rule 59

motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise

arguments that could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment."). 

Accordingly, we affirm based on the well-reasoned opinion of the district court.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1022 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2007 Entry ID: 3358287