age discrimination, sexual harassment, and wrongful termination. Though it is certainly possible that sex stereotyping is sufficiently related to these areas so as to be within their “reasonable confines,” it was up to Ms. Conroy to establish that connection, and she failed to do so. Further, in light of the fact that Dr. Dodd had never researched, written about, or opined on this topic before, it was hardly “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable” for the district court to find her unqualified. Atl. Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1163-64 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Copier v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 138 F.3d 833, 838 (10th Cir.1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Milne v. USA Cycling, Inc., 575 F.3d 1120, 1133-34 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Ralston, 275 F.3d at 969-70 (discerning no
holding that published studies published articles case reports and the experts own clinical and research experience constituted sufficient reliable scientific data upon which an expert may base conclusion holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude expert testimony on standard of care in mountainbike races because the purported expert though experienced in organizing and supervising paved road bike races had minimal mountainbiking experience and had never published any articles about bicycle racing of any sort let alone mountain bike racing holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial