
    Amy GROSSE, Appellant, v. Edward JONES and Steven Foreman, Respondent.
    No. ED 104203
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
    Filed: June 6, 2017
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 27, 2017
    Motion for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied October 5, 2017
    
      FOR APPELLANT: John J. Pawloski, 1900 Locust Street, Suite 2000, Saint Louis, Missouri 63103.
    FOR RESPONDENTS: Amy Louise Blaisdell, Molly Rae Batsch, 10 South Broadway, Suite 2000, Saint Louis, Missouri 63102.
    Before, James M. Dowd, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

Amy Grosse sued Edward Jones and her supervisor Steven Foreman (collectively “Defendants”) for employment discrimination based on her age and gender and for retaliation for her whistle-blowing. The case was tried to a jury and Defendants presented evidence that Grosse was terminated based upon her job performance and tardiness. The jury found for Defendants.

Grosse appeals, asserting that the trial court erred by: (1) ruling as a matter of law that as a legal precondition to the admission of “me too” evidence of Edward Jones’s discriminatory conduct toward other protected-group employees, the other victims must share the same decision-maker or same supervisors; (2) denying Grosse an opportunity to establish a formal offer of proof regarding Paula Kleier’s testimony; (3) ruling as a matter of law that evidence of certain phone records and other reports that Grosse purportedly took from Edward Jones when she was terminated were inadmissible; (4) ruling as a matter of law that evidence of Grosse’s husband’s ankle injury and the death of her father were inadmissible; (5) allowing Defendants to produce and use documents produced late in discovery; (6) requiring her to pay the fees associated with Defendants’ expert witness; (7) prohibiting any evidence of Grosse’s job search besides her application to Wells Fargo; and (8) sustaining Defendants’ objections to Grosse’s leading questions. Finding no error of law, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).  