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

Within a month after plaintiff-appellant Raymond Zisumbo complained to his supervisor at Ogden Regional Medical Center (ORMC) about alleged race discrimination in the workplace, ORMC investigated Zisumbo for submitting apparently fraudulent letters to his supervisor months earlier. After confirming that at least one of the letters was falsified, ORMC terminated Zisumbo’s employment. Zisumbo sued ORMC for race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing under Utah law. After years of litigation, procedural wrangling, and a previous appeal to the Tenth Circuit, only Zisumbo’s Title VII claims for unlawful termination remained to be tried to a jury. The jury found in favor of ORMC on Zisumbo’s discrimination claim but in favor of Zisumbo on his retaliation claim. In cross-appeals and a third parallel appeal, the parties raised numerous issues: Zisumbo challenged the district court’s decisions denying his request to amend his complaint, the granting of summary judgment to ORMC on his good faith and fair dealing claim, and denying in part his request for reinstatement, front pay, and back pay, as well as his request for attorneys’ fees. ORMC appealed the denial of its renewed, post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, and the denial of its request to further reduce Zisumbo’s Title VII remedies. Finding no reversible error as any party alleged, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Zisumbo v. Ogden Regional Medical Center" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Kelly Osborne applied to work as a plasma center technician (PCT) at BioLife Plasma Services. After two interviews, Osborne (who is deaf) was conditionally offered the PCT position pending final tests and paperwork. When BioLife’s human resources department received Osborne’s medical information, it determined Osborne could not safely monitor the donor area of the facility because she could not hear the alarms on the plasmapheresis machines, which audibly sound when something goes wrong or requires attention. When Osborne reported to the facility for her first day of work, Joe Elder, the manager, informed her BioLife had rescinded her offer of employment. Osborne filed a lawsuit alleging that BioLife’s revocation of her job offer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court determined Osborne failed to identify accommodations that would allow her to perform essential functions of the PCT position, and granted summary judgment to BioLife and instructed each party to bear its own costs. Both parties appealed: Osborne, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to BioLife; BioLife, seeking reversal of the district court’s determination that each party should bear its own costs. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Osborne identified a genuine dispute of material fact regarding her ability to perform essential functions of the PCT position with reasonable accommodation, making summary judgment premature. BioLife’s cross-appeal for costs was deemed moot. View "Osborne v. Baxter Healthcare Corp." on Justia Law

Joseph Martinez was a participant in the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Plan, (governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)). Following some health problems, Martinez retired from plumbing in 2004 at age 56 and took advantage of the Plan’s early retirement pension. After a few years in retirement, he felt well enough to resume working, and his pension was suspended during that time according to rules that prohibit retirement benefits during disqualifying employment. When he retired again in 2009, he asked the National Pension Fund to allow him to convert the pension benefits he previously elected from an early retirement pension to a disability pension (a change that would have entitled him to higher monthly payments). The Fund denied the conversion and the district court upheld the denial. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Plan language was unambiguous and allowed Plan participants to apply for and receive only one type of pension benefit for life absent several clearly delineated exceptions, none of which applied to Martinez. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Fund’s denial of Martinez’s claim for disability benefits. View "Martinez v. Plumbers & Pipefitters" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Susan Bennett appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer, defendant-appellee Windstream Communications, Inc. Windstream acquired the company that had employed Bennett for twelve years, Paetec Communications, Inc. At the time of the acquisition, Bennett was a Fiber Optic Tech III, responsible for locating fiber optic cable, repairing, splicing, and testing it, and performing routine weekly and monthly maintenance at various sites. After the acquisition, Bennett’s pay and benefits remained the same. A few months after Windstream assumed Paetec’s operations, Todd Moore became Bennett’s supervisor. Moore instituted a policy requiring all technicians, including Bennett, to check in to an assigned manned office each morning at 8 a.m. unless they had tasks to perform at other worksites. Bennett was assigned to check in at the Tulsa office, which was the closest manned office to her home in Gore, Oklahoma. Given the distance between Gore and Tulsa, Bennett was required to commute a total of almost four hours each day. A Human Resources specialist, testified that the check-in policy, though not written, was standard Windstream practice. Bennett understood that she was required to report to the Tulsa office each morning at 8 a.m., yet she often arrived at the Tulsa office more than two hours late. On a number of occasions, she did not report to the Tulsa office at all or left several hours early to drive home, rather than working until 5 p.m. as required. Bennett was disciplined for her tardiness and absences. Concurrently with the discipline, Bennett complained of chest pains and made a workers' compensation claim for "work related stress." Bennett failed to return to work following her medical leave, and she was "separated" from the company. Bennett brought several claims alleging gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), violation of the Oklahoma Antidiscrimination Act (OADA), and constructive discharge in violation of Oklahoma public policy and federal law. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order. View "Bennett v. Windstream Communications" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Joyce Rock was terminated from her position as principal of a school in the Central Consolidated School District (the District) after she spoke at a public meeting in opposition to a proposal by the District’s administration to close her school. Rock brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against defendants the District’s Board of Education and Superintendent Don Levinski, alleging that they violated the First Amendment by retaliating against her for her speech. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that they did not violate Rock’s First Amendment rights and that Levinksi was entitled to qualified immunity. Upon review of the specific facts of this case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding that Rock’s interest in publicly expressing her policy views did not overcome Defendants’ concern that those holding high-ranking policy positions speak publicly with a single voice on policy matters. View "Rock v. Levinski" on Justia Law

In an interlocutory appeal, defendant-appellant Kansas Department of Labor (KDOL) argued the district court should have dismissed plaintiff-appellee Kathleen Arbogast's suit because: (1) KDOL lacks the capacity to sue and to be sued under Kansas law; and (2) even if KDOL was a proper defendant, it was immune from suit by operation of the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Arbogast was employed in the Workers Compensation Division of KDOL. She suffered from asthma and, in April 2008, complained that perfumes and other strong fragrances in the workplace were impairing her ability to work. In September 2010, Arbogast was moved to a workspace in the basement of her office building in an attempt to alleviate the problem. But Arbogast continued to suffer asthma attacks when coworkers wearing fragrances would come speak with her, prompting Arbogast to make additional complaints to her supervisor. In 2011, Karin Brownlee, then-Secretary of Labor, terminated Arbogast's employment at KDOL. The Tenth Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to consider KDOL's capacity argument, but the Court exercised jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine and affirmed the district court's determination that KDOL was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from Arbogast's claims. View "Arbogast v. Kansas Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Paul Levy filed suit, alleging that he was constructively discharged from the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) in retaliation for advocating for better accommodation for a disabled co-worker. He filed retaliation claims against SRS under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment to SRS on both claims, concluding that SRS was entitled to sovereign immunity on Levy's ADA claim and that Levy's Rehabilitation Act claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Levy appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Levy v. Kansas Dept of SRS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Sabreen Gad filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Kansas State University, alleging she was discriminated against in her effort to obtain a tenure-track position. Despite the EEOC sending her a formal charge document to sign and verify, as both Title VII and EEOC regulations required, she never did so. The EEOC elected not to pursue her case; she brought a Title VII suit against KSU. The issue this appeal presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether Title VII's requirement that a claimant verify the charges against an employer was a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit: if yes, then the district court correctly concluded that it lacked Article III subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint; if the verification requirement was a non-jurisdictional condition precedent to suit, it could be waived without defeating jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit concluded the verification requirement was non-jurisdictional and did not divest the federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court reversed the district court's contrary decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Gad v. Kansas State University" on Justia Law

Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., d.b.a. LegalShield, sued its former employee Todd Cahill, claiming Cahill had breached his contract, unlawfully misappropriated Pre-Paid’s trade secrets, and tortiously interfered with contract and business relations. Cahill removed the case from state to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, and moved to stay the district court proceedings under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) so the parties could pursue arbitration. Thereafter the district court stayed litigation pending arbitration. Cahill failed to pay his share of the arbitration fees, and the arbitrators terminated arbitration proceedings. Pre-Paid moved the district court to lift the stay and resume with litigation. The court granted the motion, adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Finding that the district court did not err in lifting the stay under 9 U.S.C. Section 3 of the FAA because the arbitration "ha[d] been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement” and Cahill was “in default in proceeding with such arbitration," the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. View "Pre-Paid Legal Services v. Cahill" on Justia Law

Ricky Nixon was a Denver police officer. He was involved in two high-profile incidents in which claims of excessive force generated substantial negative publicity for the Denver Police Department: a traffic stop of Alex Landau in January 2009 and an incident outside the Denver Diner restaurant later that year. Nixon would later be fired from his position, and he sued, bringing claims against his former employer, the City & County of Denver. The district court dismissed Nixon’s First Amendment and due-process claims for failure to state a claim for relief. In this appeal, counsel for appellant Nixon told a "story of injustice" and argued against positions not adopted by the district court." But the Tenth Circuit found that "Nixon’s opening brief does almost nothing to advance his cause. The first 11 of its 18 pages are devoted to the procedural background of the case and allegations in his complaint, much of which is of no apparent relevance to the appeal. That left only seven pages of the opening brief to accomplish the essential task of showing how the district court had erred in the three rulings that underlay its dismissal of Nixon’s stigma-plus due-process claim . . .and his First Amendment retaliation claim." Finding that Nixon indeed failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Nixon v. City & County of Denver" on Justia Law