779 F.2d 18 (8th Cir. 1985), 84-2576, Grebin v. Sioux Falls Independent School Dist. No. 49-5

Docket Nº:84-2576.
Citation:779 F.2d 18
Party Name:Janet GREBIN, Appellant, v. SIOUX FALLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 49-5, John W. Harris, H.C. Rustad, Ronald L. Becker and Arnold L. Bauer, Appellees.
Case Date:December 06, 1985
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 18

779 F.2d 18 (8th Cir. 1985)

Janet GREBIN, Appellant,



Harris, H.C. Rustad, Ronald L. Becker and Arnold

L. Bauer, Appellees.

No. 84-2576.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

December 6, 1985

Submitted Sept. 13, 1985.

John N. Gridley, Sioux Falls, S.D., for appellant.

Michael L. Luce, Sioux Falls, S.D., for appellees.

Before HEANEY, JOHN R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

Janet Grebin appeals from an adverse court verdict in her claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e, for sex discrimination and from an adverse jury verdict in her claim under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 626 for age discrimination.

Page 19

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.


Grebin was forty-three years old when she was considered for the ninth-grade English teaching position at Axtell Park Junior High School for the 1983-84 school year. Grebin's prior teaching experience consisted of one semester as an English teacher in Chester, South Dakota, and three years as a substitute with the defendant Sioux Falls School District (Sioux Falls). For one semester of that three-year period, she taught civics at Axtell Park. Her application for full-time teaching employment had been on file with Sioux Falls since March 1980. The job was not given to Grebin, but instead to twenty-seven-year-old Jeff Herbert. Herbert had three years experience as a full-time teacher and coach. During two of those three years, he taught English.

Grebin commenced this action in February, 1984, alleging that she was not hired for the English position at Axtell Park because of her age and her sex. A jury returned a verdict for the defendant on the age discrimination count, and the court dismissed her sex discrimination claim.


Grebin's attack on the trial court's rejection of her sex discrimination claim is twofold. First, she claims the court erred by failing to address certain "admissions" the defendant made at trial. Second, that the content of these "admissions" renders the court's decision "clearly erroneous." For reversal of the jury's determination of her age discrimination claim, Grebin alleges several procedural errors on the part of the trial court: (1) it improperly granted defendants' motion in limine; (2) it improperly instructed the jury on the burden of proof and inferences it could make; and (3) it refused to instruct the jury on the "willfulness" element of a discrimination action. We address each of these contentions in turn.

A. The Sex Discrimination Claim.

The trial court determined that...

To continue reading