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

A former employee of an Oklahoma-based aviation training company alleged that his one-year employment contract was not renewed because he is a disabled veteran and because he complained to human resources about his supervisor’s disparaging comments regarding his disability. The employee, a Marine veteran with a high VA disability rating, worked as a Loadmaster Instructor in Kuwait. During his tenure, he disclosed his disability status for affirmative action purposes and later informed his supervisor and a co-worker when his rating increased. After this disclosure, his supervisor made inappropriate remarks about the disability system and the employee’s status, which led to a complaint and a subsequent reprimand of the supervisor. The employee’s FAA flight certificate expired shortly before his contract ended, and he received a negative performance appraisal from his immediate supervisor. The company’s higher management, who were responsible for contract renewal decisions, cited subpar job performance and the lapse of the flight certificate as reasons for not renewing the contract.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims. The court found that the employee failed to present sufficient evidence that the stated reasons for non-renewal were pretextual under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or that the decision was motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The court also held that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) does not protect against discrimination based solely on disability status, but rather on military service itself.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the employee did not create a triable issue of fact under the “cat’s paw” theory linking a supervisor’s alleged bias to the ultimate decisionmakers. The court also confirmed that USERRA does not extend to claims of discrimination based solely on disability status. View "Sellman v. Aviation Training Consulting" on Justia Law

Bethany Scheer was employed by Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc. (SCL) from 2014 to 2019. During her employment, Scheer faced performance issues and was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) that included mandatory counseling through SCL’s employee assistance program (EAP). Scheer initially agreed to the PIP but later refused to sign a form authorizing the disclosure of her counseling attendance and compliance, leading to her termination. Scheer sued SCL under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging discrimination based on a perceived disability.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of SCL. The court concluded that the mandatory referral to counseling did not constitute an adverse employment action because it did not cause a significant change in Scheer’s employment status, as required by precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis rejected the significance test previously used and established a new standard requiring plaintiffs to show they suffered "some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment." The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration under the new standard set forth in Muldrow. The district court must now determine if Scheer suffered "some harm" as a result of SCL’s actions. View "Scheer v. Sisters of Charity" on Justia Law

David Jenny, an employee of L3Harris Technologies, Inc., suffered from recurring cellulitis, which was aggravated by frequent international travel required by his job. He requested and was granted an accommodation to book seats with extra legroom on long flights. However, within three months of this accommodation, Jenny was denied permission to travel for routine business, removed from his leadership role, and ultimately discharged. Jenny sued L3Harris for discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act.The United States District Court for the District of Utah acknowledged that Jenny established a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation and produced sufficient evidence that L3Harris’s explanation for his discharge was pretextual. Despite this, the district court granted summary judgment to L3Harris, citing the exception set out in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., concluding that Jenny’s evidence did not sufficiently link his discharge to any discriminatory or retaliatory motive.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court improperly applied the Reeves exception. The Tenth Circuit held that Jenny had indeed met the requirements of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Jenny, did not meet the requirements for invoking the Reeves exception. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to L3Harris and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jenny v. L3Harris Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

Nancy Stark, as the legal guardian and mother of Jill Finley, an incapacitated person, filed a lawsuit against Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. Finley, who suffered a hypoxic brain injury in 2007, was initially approved for long-term disability benefits by Reliance. However, in 2022, Reliance terminated her benefits, claiming recent testing did not support her total disability. Stark appealed, and Reliance reinstated the benefits in 2023. Stark then sued, seeking a surcharge for financial harm caused by the wrongful termination, claiming breach of fiduciary duty for not providing internal records, and contesting the deduction of social security payments from Finley's disability payments.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted Reliance's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court found that Stark did not plausibly allege a claim for equitable relief under ERISA, nor did she demonstrate that Reliance's actions violated the terms of the insurance policy or breached fiduciary duties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that Stark was not entitled to attorney’s fees incurred during the administrative appeal under ERISA’s § 1132(a)(3) or § 1132(g). The court also found that Stark's claims regarding the SSD offset were time-barred and waived due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Additionally, the court concluded that Stark did not allege any concrete harm resulting from Reliance's alleged failure to provide requested records during the administrative appeal. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss all of Stark's claims. View "Stark v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Darren Markley sued his employer, US Bank, in federal court, alleging age discrimination under federal law and wrongful termination under Colorado state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of US Bank on the federal claim and dismissed the state law claim without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Markley did not appeal the dismissal of the state law claim or request the district court to reconsider it under diversity jurisdiction, despite knowing that diversity jurisdiction existed.Markley then filed his state law claim in the Denver District Court. US Bank removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved to dismiss the claim, arguing claim preclusion. The district court granted the motion, holding that Markley could have pursued his state law claim in the original federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that his failure to do so precluded him from bringing the claim in a new case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that claim preclusion applied because Markley could have litigated his state law claim in the prior federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a final judgment on the merits in the earlier action, which included the resolution of the federal claim, precluded Markley from bringing the state law claim in a new lawsuit. The court also found that the district court did not violate the party presentation principle by addressing the issue of diversity jurisdiction, as it was within the court's power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law. View "Markley v. U.S. Bank National Association" on Justia Law

J.H. participated in an employee welfare-benefit plan insured by Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, with her son, A.H., as a beneficiary. After seeking benefits for A.H.'s yearlong stay at a mental-health treatment center, Anthem denied coverage, and Plaintiffs' appeal to Anthem was unsuccessful. Over a year after their final appeal through Anthem was decided, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to recover benefits under § 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).The United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the action, concluding it was time-barred under a provision of the Plan that required civil actions under ERISA § 502(a) to be brought within one year of the grievance or appeal decision. Plaintiffs argued that another sentence in the Plan set a three-year limitations period, creating an ambiguity that should be interpreted in their favor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the two provisions were not inconsistent and both applied. The court explained that the one-year limitations period for § 502(a) actions and the three-year limitations period for other actions were distinct and could both be applicable. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, concluding that Plaintiffs' action was time-barred as it was filed beyond the one-year limitations period specified in the Plan. View "J.H. v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance" on Justia Law

The case involves two Utah corporations, 3484, Inc. and 3486, Inc., created by film producer David Wulf to produce Hallmark movies. The companies shared personnel, including Jennifer Ricci and Brett Miller, who were responsible for various production roles. In April 2021, drivers employed by 3484 contacted a union representative to discuss organizing. Ricci questioned driver April Hanson about union activity and asked her to keep the conversation confidential. Later, Miller warned driver Roy Brewer that production would move to Canada if the drivers organized. The drivers went on strike, and after the strike, 3486 refused to reinstate them, alleging misconduct.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that the Employers committed unfair labor practices, including unlawful interrogation and threats, and ordered remedies. The Employers argued that the Board's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the Board's procedures and remedies were unauthorized or violated their constitutional rights. The Employers filed a petition for review, and the NLRB filed a cross-application for enforcement of its order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings, except for the finding that 3484 unlawfully interrogated Hanson. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Employers' constitutional challenges and 3486's challenge to the Board's statutory authority because these arguments were not preserved for appellate review. The court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement, except for the finding related to Hanson's interrogation, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "3484, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

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

Larry Lawson, former CEO of Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., retired and entered into a Retirement Agreement with Spirit, which allowed him to continue vesting in long-term incentive stock awards as if he were an active employee. This agreement was conditioned on his compliance with a non-competition covenant from his original Employment Agreement. Lawson later engaged with a hedge fund, Elliott Management, which was involved in a proxy contest with Arconic, a competitor of Spirit. Spirit deemed this a violation of the non-competition covenant and ceased payments and stock vesting under the Retirement Agreement.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas held a bench trial and found that Lawson had not violated the non-competition covenant, ruling in his favor. Spirit appealed, and the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that Lawson had breached the covenant and remanded the case to determine the enforceability of the covenant under Kansas law.On remand, the district court found the non-competition covenant enforceable without applying the reasonableness test from Weber v. Tillman, concluding that the covenant was a condition precedent to the receipt of future benefits, not a traditional non-compete. The court severed the injunctive enforcement mechanism from the covenant, leaving only the condition precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, predicting that the Kansas Supreme Court would not apply the Weber reasonableness test to a non-competition condition precedent to the receipt of future benefits. The court also denied Lawson's motion to certify the question to the Kansas Supreme Court, finding it unnecessary to resolve the issue. View "Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems" on Justia Law