Opinion ID: 3055147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sexual Harrassment

Text: 5 Case: 13-10589 Date Filed: 06/20/2013 Page: 6 of 6 Hudson contends the district court failed to address her sexual harassment claim against a male supervisor. Her former employer responds that the sexual harassment issue raised for the first time in Hudson’s motion for reconsideration should not be considered by us, as it was improperly raised. “At the summary judgment stage, the proper procedure for plaintiffs to assert a new claim is to amend the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).” Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald and Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that a nonmovant could not raise new arguments in a brief opposing a motion for summary judgment). We conclude from the record here that Hudson failed to properly raise her claim of sexual harassment, because she did not present it until she filed her postjudgment motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we find no error in the district court’s refusal to consider Hudson’s sexual harassment claim. For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Middle Flint. AFFIRMED. 6