Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mitchell v. Genlyte Thomas Group, 03-60973 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 03-60973 Visitors: 34
Filed: Nov. 04, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 4, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-60973 PATRICIA EVANS MITCHELL Plaintiff - Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. GENLYTE THOMAS GROUP LLC, doing business as Day-Brite Lighting Inc Defendant - Appellant-Cross-Appellee Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Aberdeen 1:01-CV-285-M-D Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM a
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 4, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-60973 PATRICIA EVANS MITCHELL Plaintiff - Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. GENLYTE THOMAS GROUP LLC, doing business as Day-Brite Lighting Inc Defendant - Appellant-Cross-Appellee Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Aberdeen 1:01-CV-285-M-D Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The district court correctly held that the sexual harassment claim of Plaintiff-Appellee Patricia Mitchell was not time-barred as Mitchell introduced sufficient evidence of related discriminatory acts within the statutory period. Further, sufficient evidence supports the jury verdict on Mitchell’s sexual harassment and retaliation claims and the amount of * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 emotional distress damages found by the jury, and the district court did not err in denying Defendant-Appellant Genlyte Thomas Group, LLC’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to these verdicts. Finally, the district court correctly reconciled the jury’s verdicts on Mitchell’s failure to promote claim. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Costs shall be borne by Genlyte. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer