Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Loretta Mauldin, an employee at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (MCAAP) since 1991, filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the United States Department of the Army. Mauldin, who was born in 1958, claimed retaliation and discrimination based on age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The case arose after Mauldin was not selected for a promotion to a Grade 9 Explosives Operator Supervisor position in 2018. She alleged that her non-selection was due to her age, sex, and prior Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activity, including supporting a co-worker's age discrimination complaint.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of the Army, dismissing Mauldin's claims. The court found that Mauldin failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation and discrimination. It concluded that the Army provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for selecting another candidate, Scott Harkey, who performed better in the interview process. The court also determined that Mauldin did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the Army's reasons were pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court correctly considered the Army's evidence, including testimony from the interview panelists and Mauldin's supervisor, Buckner. The court found that Mauldin did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext. The court emphasized that the interview process was neutral and that Mauldin's lower interview scores were a legitimate reason for her non-selection. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit upheld the summary judgment in favor of the Army, concluding that Mauldin's claims of retaliation and discrimination were not supported by sufficient evidence. View "Mauldin v. Wormuth" on Justia Law

Kenya Watkins, a Black woman, was employed by Genesh, Inc., d/b/a Burger King, from August 2014 to August 2015. She alleged that her manager verbally, physically, and sexually harassed her, including forcing her into a freezer, groping her, simulating sex with her, and stating she would not be promoted unless she had sex with him. Watkins filed an employment discrimination charge with the Kansas Human Rights Commission and the EEOC in early 2016. In December 2018, she alleged that Genesh admonished her then-employer, Church’s Chicken, for hiring her, leading to a second EEOC charge in 2019.In August 2019, Watkins sued Genesh in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for race discrimination. The district court dismissed her complaint, finding her allegations did not plausibly support racial harassment. The court noted that Watkins had pending EEOC charges and could file her Title VII claims once the EEOC proceedings concluded. In July 2021, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter for her 2019 charge, which Watkins did not pursue. In April 2022, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter for her 2016 charge, leading Watkins to file a second lawsuit in July 2022, raising claims under Title VII and other statutes.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed Watkins’s 2022 complaint as untimely. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on claim preclusion grounds. The court held that Watkins’s Title VII claims were precluded by the final judgment in her 2019 lawsuit, as both suits arose from the same employment relationship. The court reaffirmed that the absence of a right-to-sue letter did not deprive Watkins of a full and fair opportunity to litigate her Title VII claims in the initial suit. View "Watkins v. Genesh" on Justia Law

C.L., a twelve-year-old student, was invited by her teacher, Jenna Riep, to an after-school art club meeting, which turned out to be a Gender and Sexualities Alliance (GSA) meeting. During the meeting, a guest speaker, Kimberly Chambers, discussed gender identity and suggested that students uncomfortable with their bodies might be transgender. Chambers also warned students that it might not be safe to tell their parents about the meeting and provided her personal contact information for further communication. C.L. announced herself as transgender at the meeting and later informed her parents, who subsequently disenrolled her from the school. H.J., another student, had similar experiences and also faced emotional distress, leading her parents to disenroll her from the school.The parents of C.L. and H.J. sued the Poudre School District and its Board of Education, alleging a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment parental substantive-due-process rights. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The parents then moved to amend their complaint, focusing solely on a claim against the school district for monetary damages. The district court denied the motion to amend, concluding that the parents had failed to plausibly allege municipal liability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the parents did not plausibly allege that the school district's official policy was the moving force behind their alleged injuries. The court found that the parents failed to establish a direct causal link between the district's policies and the constitutional injury they claimed. View "Lee v. Poudre School District R-1" on Justia Law

Patrick Harmon was stopped by Salt Lake City police officer Kris Smith for a traffic violation while riding a bicycle. Harmon provided a false name, but Officer Smith identified him and discovered an active felony warrant. When Officer Smith attempted to arrest Harmon, he fled. Officers Clinton Fox and Scott Robinson joined the chase. The officers reported seeing Harmon reach towards his waist or pocket and heard him mention cutting or stabbing. Officer Fox claimed he saw Harmon holding a knife and shot him three times from five to seven feet away. Officer Smith, who was about fifteen feet away, fired his taser. Harmon died from the gunshots, and a knife was found near his right arm.Harmon's estate and his children sued Officer Fox and Salt Lake City for excessive force. The United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the case, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to Officer Fox and Salt Lake City, concluding that any factfinder would determine Harmon was holding a knife and that the shooting was reasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that a genuine dispute of material fact existed regarding whether Harmon brandished a knife or threatened the officers. The court noted that the video evidence did not clearly show a knife, and Officer Smith testified he did not see a knife. The court concluded that a factfinder could reasonably find that Harmon did not pose an imminent threat, making the use of deadly force unreasonable. The court held that Officer Fox was not entitled to qualified immunity and reversed the summary judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Harmon v. Salt Lake City" on Justia Law

Iron Bar Holdings, LLC, a private landowner in Wyoming, owns a checkerboarded ranch interspersed with federal and state public lands. The only way to access these public lands, other than by aircraft, is by corner-crossing, which involves stepping from one public parcel to another at their adjoining corners without touching the private land in between. In 2020 and 2021, a group of hunters from Missouri corner-crossed to hunt elk on the public lands within Iron Bar's ranch. Iron Bar's property manager confronted the hunters, and law enforcement was contacted, but no citations were issued. In 2021, the hunters were prosecuted for criminal trespass but were acquitted. Iron Bar then filed a civil lawsuit for trespassing, seeking $9 million in damages.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming granted summary judgment in favor of the hunters, holding that corner-crossing without physically contacting private land and without causing damage does not constitute unlawful trespass. Iron Bar Holdings appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that while Wyoming law recognizes a property owner's right to exclude others from their airspace, federal law, specifically the Unlawful Inclosures Act (UIA) of 1885, overrides state law in this context. The UIA prohibits any inclosure of public lands that obstructs free passage or transit over them. The court found that Iron Bar's actions effectively enclosed public lands and prevented lawful access, which is prohibited by the UIA. The court affirmed the district court's decision, allowing the hunters to corner-cross as long as they did not physically touch Iron Bar's land. View "Iron Bar Holdings v. Cape" on Justia Law

Atlantic Richfield Company acquired a mine in Colorado, which had been leaking sulfuric acid into a nearby river. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intervened in 2000 to stabilize the situation, but the leaks persisted. In 2011, the EPA ordered Atlantic Richfield to build water treatment systems, and in 2021, Atlantic Richfield settled with the EPA, agreeing to continue the cleanup and pay $400,000. Six months later, Atlantic Richfield sued NL Industries, Inc. and NL Environmental Management Services for contribution towards the cleanup costs.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted partial summary judgment in favor of the NL entities, ruling that Atlantic Richfield's claims to recoup part of the cleanup costs were time-barred. Atlantic Richfield appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and determined that the action was one for contribution, not cost recovery. The court noted that the Supreme Court has clarified that cost recovery and contribution are distinct actions. The court found that Atlantic Richfield's claim fell under the contribution category because it sought to recoup expenses following a settlement with the EPA, which required Atlantic Richfield to perform a removal action at the site.The Tenth Circuit concluded that the statute of limitations for contribution actions under 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(3) should apply, even though the specific types of claims listed in that section did not include Atlantic Richfield's situation. The court held that the three-year limitations period for contribution actions applied, making Atlantic Richfield's lawsuit timely. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Atlantic Richfield Co. v. NL Industries" on Justia Law

A fire destroyed the Chimayo post office in New Mexico, which was leased by Thomas Workman to the United States Postal Service (USPS). Workman filed a petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to take five depositions before deciding whether to sue USPS. He claimed he needed these depositions to complete his investigation into the fire's cause, responsible parties, and USPS's operation of the facility. The petition was denied because Workman did not provide a valid reason why he could not already bring a lawsuit or explain why the testimony would be lost if not taken immediately.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Workman's petition. The court found that Workman failed to show an inability to bring a lawsuit and a risk of losing testimony. Workman argued that he could not bring his claims due to an incomplete investigation and that the testimony might be lost over time. However, the court determined that these reasons did not meet the requirements of Rule 27.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Workman did not demonstrate a true inability to bring a lawsuit or a sufficient risk of losing testimony. The court emphasized that Rule 27 is not intended for discovering facts to frame a complaint but to perpetuate known testimony that might be lost. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the petition. View "Workman v. United States Postal Service" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of hospice service providers in Oklahoma, sued Defendant Axxess Technology Solutions, Inc. for breach of contract, alleging that Axxess failed to properly process claims, resulting in non-payment for services. Axxess was served but mistakenly believed it had not been due to an employee error. Consequently, Axxess did not respond to the complaint, leading the district court to enter a default judgment against it. Axxess moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to a contractual mediation requirement. The district court denied this motion, and Axxess did not appeal.Over six months later, Axxess filed a second motion to set aside the default judgment, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (4), and (6). The district court denied this motion on claim preclusion grounds, and Axxess timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision but not on claim preclusion grounds. Instead, it held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the second motion because the arguments raised could have been presented in the first motion. The court noted that Axxess's delay in raising these arguments was sufficient reason to deny relief under Rule 60(b). The court also granted Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to properly allege diversity jurisdiction, concluding that there was complete diversity between the parties. View "Choice Hospice v. Axxess Technology Solutions" on Justia Law

Wayne Brown, a Tulsa police officer, was terminated after a private citizen, Marq Lewis, brought several of Brown's old Facebook posts to the attention of the City of Tulsa and the Tulsa Police Department. The posts included images and messages that were deemed offensive and in violation of the department's social media policy. Brown filed a lawsuit claiming his termination violated his First Amendment rights and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also brought a wrongful discharge claim under Oklahoma law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma dismissed Brown's federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. The court concluded that the City's interest in maintaining public confidence in the police force outweighed Brown's free speech rights and that Chief Jordan was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also dismissed Brown's Equal Protection claim, determining it was a "class-of-one" theory foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the dismissal of Brown's First Amendment claim, finding that the district court erred in conducting the Pickering balancing test at the motion to dismiss stage and in granting qualified immunity to Chief Jordan. The court affirmed the dismissal of Brown's Equal Protection claim, agreeing that it was a non-cognizable "class-of-one" claim in the public employment context. The court also reversed the district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Brown's state law claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brown v. City of Tulsa" on Justia Law

Universitas Education, LLC sought to recover funds lost in an insurance fraud scheme orchestrated by Daniel Carpenter, which defrauded Universitas of $30 million in life insurance proceeds. The fraud involved multiple corporate entities, including Avon Capital, LLC, and its affiliates. Universitas secured a civil judgment in the Southern District of New York for $30.6 million, including $6.7 million against Avon Capital, LLC. Universitas registered the judgment in Oklahoma and sought to garnish a $6.7 million insurance portfolio held by SDM Holdings, which Avon owned.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of Universitas and authorized a receivership over Avon and SDM. Avon and SDM appealed, arguing procedural defects and disputes on the merits. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the summary judgment on mootness grounds, determining that the district court could not rely on the registered judgment because its five-year effective term had expired before the district court entered its order. The case was remanded for further proceedings.Upon remand, Universitas re-registered the New York judgment, and the district court re-entered summary judgment in favor of Universitas and reauthorized the receivership over Avon and SDM. Avon and SDM challenged the district court's jurisdiction and the re-entered orders. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the district court retained jurisdiction to preserve the status quo during the appeal and properly re-affirmed its summary judgment and receivership orders after receiving the appellate mandate. The court concluded that Universitas did not need to file a new cause of action and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. View "Universitas Education v. Avon Capital" on Justia Law