Baidehi Mukherjee v. The Childrens Mercy Hospital, No. 18-2731 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. The district court did not err in determining that plaintiff's claims under the Equal Pay Act and the Missouri Human Rights Act were untimely and that she failed to substantiate her claim concerning misappropriation of her name; claims regarding the district court's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions rejected.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2731 ___________________________ Dr. Baidehi L. Mukherjee lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. The Childrens Mercy Hospital lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: April 3, 2020 Filed: April 9, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this employment discrimination action, Dr. Baidehi Mukherjee appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of partial summary judgment as to some of her claims, and entry of judgment upon an adverse jury verdict as to her remaining claims. Mukherjee challenges the adverse grant of partial summary judgment. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we agree with the district court that Mukherjee’s claims under the Equal Pay Act and the Missouri Human Rights Act were untimely, and that she failed to substantiate her claims related to the alleged appropriation of her name. See Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas City, 214 F.3d 1011, 1016 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). Mukherjee also challenges several of the district court’s evidentiary rulings at trial and aspects of the jury instructions. We discern no reversible error in any of the district court’s evidentiary rulings, see Gee v. Pride, 992 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir. 1993) (district court’s decisions on admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed unless there is clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion; failure to object to evidence constitutes waiver of right to challenge evidence on appeal, absent plain error by trial court); and we conclude the court did not err, much less plainly err, in instructing the jury, see Lighting & Power Servs. v. Roberts, 354 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2004) (when party failed to object to jury instructions at trial, review was for plain error). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -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.
