Case Name: Patricia Evans MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. GENLYTE THOMAS GROUP LLC, doing business as Day-Brite Lighting Inc, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-04
Citations: 111 F. App'x 764
Docket Number: No. 03-60973
Parties: Patricia Evans MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. GENLYTE THOMAS GROUP LLC, doing business as Day-Brite Lighting Inc, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 764–765

Head Matter:
Patricia Evans MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. GENLYTE THOMAS GROUP LLC, doing business as Day-Brite Lighting Inc, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
No. 03-60973.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 4, 2004.
Jim D. Waide, III, Luther Calvin Fisher, IV, Ronnie Lee Woodruff, Waide & Associates, Tupelo, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
Gary Erwin Friedman, Latoya Cheree Merritt, Phelps Dunbar, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The district court correctly held that the sexual harassment claim of Plaintiff-Appellee Patricia Mitchell was not time-barred as Mitchell introduced sufficient evidence of related discriminatory acts within the statutory period. Further, sufficient evidence supports the jury verdict on Mitchell's sexual harassment and retaliation claims and the amount of emotional distress damages found by the jury, and the district court did not err in denying Defendant-Appellant Genlyte Thomas Group, LLC's motion for judgment as a matter of law as to these verdicts. Finally, the district court correctly reconciled the jury's verdicts on Mitchell's failure to promote claim.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Costs shall be borne by Genlyte.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.