222592P.pdf   08/22/2023  May Yang  v.  Robert Half Int., Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  22-2592
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Erickson, Author, with Shepherd and Grasz, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Employment discrimination. Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion 
   tolled her time to appeal, and her notice of appeal was timely; the 
   district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motions 
   to amend the scheduling order, to supplement the record, and to add a 
   claim for punitive damages; plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie 
   case of race discrimination, and her Section 1981 claim failed as a matter 
   of law; plaintiff's state law defamation claims failed as she did not 
   establish that any comments or statements made by defendants injured her 
   reputation; plaintiff has abandoned on appeal her claim of intentional 
   infliction of emotional distress; with respect to her claim for negligent 
   infliction of emotional distress, plaintiff was unable to state a claim 
   for defamation, malicious prosecution, or other willful, wanton, or 
   malicious conduct sufficient to state a claim for negligent infliction of 
   emotional distress; the district court did not err in granting defendant 
   RHI's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of race 
   discrimination and retaliation; plaintiff failed to make a prima facie 
   case of hostile work environment and could not show she was constructively 
   discharged; plaintiff's Minnesota Whistleblower Act claim failed because 
   she suffered no adverse employment action; there was an issue of material 
   fact as to whether defendant Miller had committed a battery against 
   plaintiff, and the district court erred in granting summary judgment to 
   Miller on this claim; because plaintiff cannot make a prima facie case of 
   discrimination against any defendant, her aiding and abetting 
   discrimination claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act failed as matter 
   of law; cost judgment against plaintiff affirmed; remanded to permit the 
   district court to determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 
   over plaintiff's batter claim against Miller; in light of this remand, the 
   cost judgment in favor of Miller is also vacated.