Sherry Ferguson v. General Electric, No. 07-1022 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - employment discrimination. Defendant's summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
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, * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. ________________ 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. ยง 2000e-2 (2000). Upon careful de novo review, see Devin v. Schwan's Home 1 The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 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. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
