Cooper v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 19-2705 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment following a jury verdict in favor of the City on plaintiff's claim of hostile work environment based on religion. At issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in precluding plaintiff from introducing testimony and a report by the City's retained but non-testifying expert psychiatrist who had conducted an independent medical examination of plaintiff.
The court concluded that the expert's report would have been cumulative with other testimony regarding causation and damages, and any discussion of damages was immaterial because the jury never reached that issue. Therefore, the exclusion did not result in fundamental unfairness in the trial of the case, and the court need not consider whether the district court abused its substantial case management and discovery discretion in excluding the expert's independent medical examination report and testimony, an issue the court has not previously addressed.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Wollman, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Employment discrimination. In action alleging the City subjected plaintiff to a hostile work environment because of his religious beliefs, plaintiff alleged the district court abused its discretion in precluding him from introducing testimony and a report from the City's retained but non-testifying expert psychiatrist who had conducted an independent medical examination of plaintiff in connection with his claims for emotional and mental injury; in light of the jury's verdict that the City was not liable on plaintiff's claim for hostile work environment, it did not reach plaintiff's mental health claim for damages addressed by his own therapist and the excluded report; the exclusion of the testimony and report concerning damages could not result in a fundamental unfairness to plaintiff, and the district court's judgment is affirmed.
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.