Opinion ID: 163288
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Age-Related Comments

Text: 62 Minshall introduced several age-related statements made by Klinzing while she was employed at KMGH. McGraw-Hill argues that the district court erred in admitting these statements because they were stray comments and were unduly prejudicial. 63 As discussed above, while Klinzing's statement that old people should die was a stray comment, the remainder of Klinzing's comments were not stray. The district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in admitting the latter and the former did not prejudicially affect McGraw-Hill. See Sanjuan, 160 F.3d at 1296 (holding that this court will set aside a jury verdict only if the evidence admitted in error prejudicially affects the opposing party such that it can be reasonably concluded that ... without such evidence, there would have been a contrary result (quotations omitted)). Accordingly, the district court's admission of Klinzing's stray statement did not constitute reversible error. 64 Minshall also introduced an age-related, graphic comment made by Brad Remington (Remington), a former managing editor at KMGH. McGraw-Hill argues that this statement should have been excluded as a stray comment because Remington did not participate in the decision not to renew Minshall's contract. Because age-related comments by non-decisionmakers are not material in showing the [defendant's] action was based on age discrimination, Remington's statement was a stray comment. Cone v. Longmont United Hosp. Ass'n, 14 F.3d 526, 531 (10th Cir.1994). As with Klinzing's stray comment, however, the admission of Remington's stray comment did not prejudicially affect McGraw-Hill and the district court's admission of the comment did not constitute reversible error.