Mindy Gilster v. Primebank, 747 F.3d 1007

Defendants Primebank and Strub appeal a $900,000 jury verdict for Gilster on Title VII and Iowa Civil Rights Act claims.
Gilster alleged ongoing sexual harassment by Strub starting around 2008, culminating in a formal complaint in 2009.
Primebank investigated harassment, disciplined Strub, and later Gilster alleged retaliation after she complained.
Gilster alleged retaliation included voicemail changes, non-promotion, co-worker interviews, and ultimately termination in February 2011.
Jury found both Primebank and Strub liable; district court reduced the verdict; Defendants moved for a new trial.
Court reverses and remands for a new trial due to prejudicial rebuttal closing argument by Gilster’s counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s rebuttal closing remarks were prejudicial.	Gilster.	Gilster’s counsel’s remarks were improper but not prejudicial.	Yes; remarks were prejudicial requiring new trial.

Morrissey v. Welsh Co., 821 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1987) (standard for prejudicial closing argument demanding new trial)
United States v. Segal, 649 F.2d 599 (8th Cir. 1981) (trial court error for defendant to testify as expert about credibility)
Whittenburg v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 561 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2009) (three-factor test for prejudice from improper closing arguments)
Morrissey v. Welsh Co., 821 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1987) (reversible error for emotional appeal to punish company)
Stollings v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc., 725 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2013) (weight of evidence as a factor in prejudice)
Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. Kelly, 84 F.2d 569 (7th Cir. 1936) (closing argument should not demote credibility via improper vouching)
United States v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 768 (8th Cir. 1992) (prosecutor’s urging to be conscience of community may warrant new trial)
N.Y. Central R.R. v. Johnson, 279 U.S. 310 (1929) (failure to sustain objection may prejudice jury)