___________

No. 95-2854

___________

Barbara R. Burns, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Aon Corporation, a corporation *

chartered in Delaware, with *

corporate headquarters at *

Chicago, Illinois; Frank B. *

Hall & Company, Inc., a wholly *

owned subsidiary of Reliance *

Group Holdings, plc, a * Appeal from the United States

corporation chartered in * District Court for the

Delaware, with corporate offices* District of Minnesota.

at Briarcliff Manor, New York; *

Rollins Hudig Hall, its * [UNPUBLISHED]

affiliates and subsidiaries, *

including Rollins Hudig Hall of *

MN a successor in interest to *

Frank B. Hall and Co. of MN, *

Inc.; David J. Duddleston, *

Esq., individually, and in his *

capacity as agent of Frank B. *

Hall and Co. of MN, Inc., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 5, 1996

 Filed: April 23, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, HENLEY, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District

1

Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the reports and

recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States

Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Barbara R. Burns appeals the judgment entered by the District Court1

after it dismissed some defendants and granted summary judgment to the

remaining defendants in Burns's action alleging violations of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (1994); the

Minnesota Humans Right Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. Ann. §§ 363.01 to 363.20

(West 1991 & Supp. 1996); and Minnesota common law. We affirm.

Burns was formerly employed by Frank B. Hall & Company of Minnesota

(FBH-MN), for whom she sold insurance. Burns named as corporate defendants

Frank B. Hall and Company (FBH), of which FBH-MN was formerly a wholly

owned subsidiary; Rollins Hudig Hall of Minnesota (RHH-MN), successor in

interest to FBH-MN; Rollins Hudig Hall (RHH), of which RHH-MN is a whollyowned subsidiary; and Aon Corporation, parent corporation of FBH and RHH.

Burns alleged that in 1991 she was sexually harassed by a male

employee of FBH-MN. She also alleged that, immediately after she reported

the harassment, FBH-MN senior management personnel placed her on probation

for unsubstantiated performance problems, and that defendant Donald S.

Schneider, Senior Vice President of Human Resources for FBH, told her she

would be fired if she did not sign a settlement agreement. In June 1991,

Burns--with the advice of counsel--signed the settlement agreement, in

which the parties agreed to the terms of Burns's severance and further

agreed that Burns released all claims against FBH-MN and its successors.

The settlement agreement also required that the parties keep the terms of

the agreement and the totality of their employment relationship

confidential.
-3-

According to Burns, FBH-MN subsequently breached the terms of the

settlement agreement by disparaging her within the business community, by

falsely representing her employment with FBH-MN, and by interfering with

her efforts to become re-employed. She alleged that her termination and

FBH-MN's subsequent conduct violated Title VII and the MHRA, and that a

FBH-MN employee defamed her during a deposition. Burns further alleged

that defendant David D. Duddleston, an attorney for FBH-MN, attempted to

prevent her from exercising her rights under the MHRA by telling her she

would be sued if she pursued any of the released claims, and that

Duddleston defamed her during statements to a judge. She also alleged

claims of promissory estoppel and interference with prospective business

relations.

The District Court dismissed defendant Duddleston and granted the

corporate defendants summary judgment. The Court subsequently dismissed

defendant Schneider, the only remaining defendant, because Burns had failed

to serve him within 120 days of filing her complaint. On appeal, Burns

argues that summary judgment was not proper as to the corporate defendants,

and that Schneider should not have been dismissed. She further claims that

the District Court's decisions were influenced by judicial bias.

We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, applying the same

standard as the District Court. Demming v. Housing and Redevelopment

Auth., 66 F.3d 950, 953 (8th Cir. 1995). We conclude the District Court

properly granted the corporate defendants summary judgment.

First, with regard to Burns's discriminatory discharge claims, Aon,

RHH, and FBH were not proper Title VII or MHRA defendants, because they

were not Burns's employer. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994); Minn. Stat.

Ann. § 363.03 (West Supp. 1996). Burns failed to present evidence that

overcame the "strong presumption that a
-4-

parent company is not the employer of its subsidiary's employees." See

Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1362 (10th Cir. 1993).

Assuming RHH-MN, as FBH-MN's successor in interest, was a proper

Title VII or MHRA defendant, RHH-MN was nevertheless entitled to summary

judgment on Burns's claims of discriminatory discharge, because she

released these claims in the settlement agreement. We do not consider

Burns's argument raised for the first time on appeal that the settlement

agreement was voidable. See Dorothy J. v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 7 F.3d

729, 734 (8th Cir. 1993). While the District Court did not expressly

address Burns's allegations that FBH-MN breached the settlement agreement,

summary judgment was proper as to this claim because Burns failed to allege

or provide evidence of the specific conduct constituting a breach. 

Although the settlement agreement did not release FBH-MN from

liability for claims arising after the agreement was signed, see Minn.

Stat. Ann. § 363.031 (West 1991) (prohibiting prospective waiver), summary

judgment was also proper as to Burns's reprisal claim under the MHRA,

because Burns failed to allege or provide evidence of the specific acts of

reprisal or when they occurred. See Minn. Stat. Ann. § 363.03 subd. 7(2)

(West Supp. 1996). To the extent this claim could be interpreted as a

Title VII retaliation claim, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (1994), summary

judgment was proper because Title VII does not provide former employees a

cause of action against their former employers for post-employment

retaliation. See Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 70 F.3d 325, 329-31 (4th Cir.

1995), petition for cert. filed, 64 U.S.L.W. 3605 (U.S. Feb. 27, 1996) (No.

95-1376).

Summary judgment was also proper as to the defamation claim for the

deposition statements of an FBH-MN employee during a deposition in an

unrelated case, because statements made during a deposition are absolutely

privileged. Cf. LeBaron v. Minnesota Bd. of Pub. Defense, 499 N.W.2d 39,

41 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (holding
-5-

"the employer has an absolute privilege to defame the employee due to legal

compulsion"). Finally, we agree with the District Court that Burns's vague

and conclusory allegations failed to state a claim of promissory estoppel

or interference with prospective business relations. See Ruzicka v. Conde

Nast Publications, Inc., 999 F.2d 1319, 1320 (8th Cir. 1993) (discussing

elements of promissory estoppel under Minnesota law); Hough Transit, Ltd.

v. National Farmers Org., 472 N.W.2d 358, 361 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)

(analyzing elements of tortious interference).

As to defendant Schneider, we conclude the District Court did not

abuse its discretion in dismissing Burns's claims for failure to serve a

summons and complaint within the time requirements of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m). See Edwards v. Edwards, 754 F.2d 298, 299 (8th Cir. 1985)

(per curiam). Burns's argument that an attorney of a corporate defendant

was an agent of Schneider is without merit, see Nelson v. Swift, 271 F.2d

504, 505 (D.C. Cir. 1959) (per curiam), and Burns failed to show good cause

to excuse her failure to serve Schneider. 

As to defendant Duddleston, Burns did not address Duddleston's

dismissal in her main brief. See Falco Lime, Inc. v. Tide Towing Co., 29

F.3d 362, 367 n.6 (8th Cir. 1994). In any event, the District Court

correctly dismissed Burns's MHRA claims against Duddleston as time-barred,

and her defamation claim against him because the alleged statements made

during an unrelated legal proceeding were not actionable. See Minn. Stat.

Ann. § 363.06(3) (West 1991) (one year MHRA statute of limitations);

McGovern v. Cargill, Inc., 463 N.W.2d 556, 557 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)

(stating statements made in court proceedings are absolutely privileged).

We conclude all of Burns's post-appeal motions are without merit.

As to Burns's motion to disqualify Judge Rosenbaum and petition for a writ

of mandamus, Burns has not substantiated her claim of judicial bias. Cf.

Nerison v. Solem, 715 F.2d 415, 416-17
-6-

(8th Cir. 1983) (stating affidavit asserting judge was familiar with party

and his prior legal proceedings does not automatically or inferentially

establish judicial bias; claim must be factually substantiated), cert.

denied, 464 U.S. 1072, and cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court and deny

all pending post-appeal motions, as well as Burns's petition for a writ of

mandamus.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.