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

In this case, the plaintiff, MVT Services, LLC (MVT), purchased a workers’ compensation and employers’ liability policy (WC/EL Policy) from Great West Casualty Company (Great West) for coverage from January 1, 2013, to January 1, 2014. MVT also entered into a Staff Leasing Agreement with OEP Holdings, LLC (OEP) and purchased a non-subscriber insurance policy from Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (C&F). On August 13, 2013, MVT terminated its Texas coverage under the WC/EL Policy, effective September 16, 2013. On September 15, 2013, a day before the termination, MVT’s semi-tractor trailer crashed, killing driver Lawrence Parada. Parada’s widow filed a lawsuit against MVT. Great West denied coverage, leading MVT to seek defense under the C&F Policy.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico found that Great West breached its duty to defend MVT, causing MVT to incur damages. The court awarded MVT damages and attorney fees. Great West appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding that the Parada lawsuit would have resolved within the policy limit and that the breach did not proximately cause the damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings that MVT would have invoked the Exclusive Remedy defense and that the gross negligence claim would have resolved within the policy limit. The court also found that the district court did not err in awarding damages for the $250,000 retention under the C&F Policy, the $250,000 MVT contributed to the settlement, and $41,476.84 in attorney fees. The court affirmed the district court’s award of attorney fees, concluding that Great West failed to show the district court committed legal error or clearly erred in its fact findings. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "MVT Services v. Great West Casualty Company" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs M.S. and L.S. sought insurance coverage for mental health treatments for their child, C.S., under a health benefits plan provided by M.S.'s employer, Microsoft Corporation. The plan, administered by Premera Blue Cross, is subject to ERISA and the Parity Act. Premera denied the claim, stating the treatment was not medically necessary. Plaintiffs pursued internal and external appeals, which upheld the denial. Plaintiffs then sued in federal district court, alleging improper denial of benefits under ERISA, failure to produce documents in violation of ERISA’s disclosure requirements, and a Parity Act violation for applying disparate treatment limitations to mental health claims.The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted summary judgment to Defendants on the denial-of-benefits claim but ruled in favor of Plaintiffs on the Parity Act and ERISA disclosure claims. The court found that Defendants violated the Parity Act by using additional criteria for mental health claims and failed to disclose certain documents required under ERISA. The court awarded statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Parity Act claim, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the claim. The court reversed the district court’s ruling that Defendants violated ERISA by not disclosing the Skilled Nursing InterQual Criteria but affirmed the ruling regarding the failure to disclose the Administrative Services Agreement (ASA). The court upheld the statutory penalty for the ASA disclosure violation and affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs. View "M.S. v. Premera Blue Cross" on Justia Law

Corey McNellis, a former Athletic Director and Assistant Principal at Ponderosa High School in the Douglas County School District (DCSD), was placed on administrative leave and subsequently terminated after expressing reservations about a school play, "The Laramie Project," in a staff email chain. McNellis offered to add a "Christian perspective" to the production, which led to his investigation and termination.McNellis sued DCSD in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Colorado law. The district court dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that McNellis failed to state a plausible claim for relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of McNellis's First Amendment retaliation claim, concluding that his speech was made pursuant to his official duties and not as a private citizen. The court also affirmed the dismissal of his retaliation claims under Title VII and CADA, finding that McNellis failed to plausibly allege a causal connection between his complaints about the investigation and his termination.However, the Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal of McNellis's discrimination claims under Title VII and CADA. The court found that McNellis had plausibly alleged that his termination was linked to his religious comments, which could give rise to an inference of discrimination. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these claims. View "McNellis v. Douglas County School District" on Justia Law

Brent Electric Company (Brent) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 584 (the Union) have had a long-standing relationship since 1996. In 2018, they entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that included an interest-arbitration clause allowing either party to unilaterally submit unresolved issues to arbitration if negotiations for a new CBA failed. In 2020, Brent terminated its authorization for the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) to negotiate on its behalf and later stopped contributing to the Union pension fund. The Union filed a grievance, and the Labor Management Committee ruled in favor of the Union. In 2021, Brent and the Union failed to negotiate a new CBA, leading the Union to unilaterally submit the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator imposed a new CBA, which included both mandatory and permissive subjects of bargaining.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma dismissed Brent’s complaint to vacate the arbitration award and granted the Union’s motion for summary judgment to enforce the award. The district court found that the interest-arbitration clause in the 2018 CBA was broad and unambiguous, covering all unresolved issues, including permissive subjects of bargaining. The court also rejected Brent’s argument that the arbitration award violated public policy or the Federal Arbitration Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the presumption of arbitrability applied because the interest-arbitration clause was validly formed and unambiguously covered both mandatory and permissive subjects of bargaining. The court rejected Brent’s argument that it had a statutory right to refuse the imposition of permissive subjects, noting that Brent had contractually agreed to the interest-arbitration clause. The court also found no violation of public policy, as the arbitration award did not include a self-perpetuating interest-arbitration clause. Finally, the court concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed its powers under the Federal Arbitration Act. View "Brent Electric Company v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers" on Justia Law

Dr. Anthony Tufaro, a former Chief of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery and Professor of Medicine at the University of Oklahoma (OU), filed a lawsuit against OU and three of its doctors after his contract was not renewed. Tufaro alleged that his contract was not renewed because he had exposed various discrepancies and misconduct within OU’s Medical and Dental Colleges. His claims included wrongful termination, First Amendment retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment deprivation of property and liberty, breach of contract, and violation of the Oklahoma Constitution.The case was initially filed in state court but was later removed to federal court. In the federal court, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed all the § 1983 claims against OU and the individual defendants in their official capacities, as they were not considered "persons" under § 1983. The court also dismissed the breach of contract claim against OU, as it found that OU had followed the procedures outlined in the Faculty Handbook. However, Tufaro's Burk tort claim against OU survived the motion to dismiss.After discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court ruled that Tufaro's complaints fell outside the scope of the First Amendment because they were made during his employment as part of his official duties. The court also held that Tufaro failed to demonstrate he was an "at-will" employee, an essential element of the Burk tort claim. Following the entry of summary judgment on all remaining claims, the district court entered final judgment, ending Tufaro’s case. Tufaro appealed several of the district court's rulings. View "Tufaro v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma" on Justia Law

The case involves the United States Department of Labor (DOL) and Ascent Construction, Inc., its CEO Bradley Knowlton, and the Ascent Construction, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan). The DOL investigated Ascent and Knowlton for potential breaches of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The DOL found that Knowlton had deposited over $311,000 of the Plan’s cash into Ascent’s checking accounts and used it to pay Ascent’s business expenses. The DOL also discovered that a former Ascent employee had requested a distribution from his retirement account but never received it, even though the Plan’s custodian had issued a distribution check at Knowlton’s request.The DOL filed a lawsuit alleging that Knowlton and Ascent had violated ERISA’s fiduciary-duty standard and prohibited-transaction rules. The DOL sought a preliminary injunction to remove Knowlton and Ascent as Plan fiduciaries and appoint an independent fiduciary to prevent further ERISA violations and dissipation of the Plan’s assets. The district court granted the DOL’s motion, and the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal.While the appeal was pending, the case proceeded in the lower court. The DOL filed an amended complaint and discovery commenced. The district court later entered a default judgment against the defendants due to their willful failure to engage in the litigation process and comply with the court’s orders. The court also issued a permanent injunction that superseded the preliminary injunction, permanently barring Knowlton and Ascent from serving as trustee and administrator of the Plan.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the defendants' appeal as moot. The court reasoned that the preliminary injunction dissolved automatically with the entry of the final judgment, regardless of whether the final judgment was issued on the merits or by way of default judgment. The court concluded that granting the defendants’ requested relief—vacatur of the preliminary injunction—would have no “effect in the real world.” View "Su v. Ascent Construction" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Breeze Aviation Group, Inc. (Breeze), an airline company, and its dispute with the National Mediation Board (NMB) and the Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA). Breeze challenged the administration of a union-representation election by the NMB, which resulted in the NMB’s certification of ALPA as the representative of pilots employed by Breeze. Breeze argued that the NMB improperly excluded trainee pilots from voting in the union election and improperly refused to extend the cut-off date for voter eligibility to allow more pilot trainees to complete their training and become eligible to vote.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The district court dismissed Breeze's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, stating that federal courts have jurisdiction to review NMB certification of union representation only where the complaining party shows that the certification decision was a gross violation of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) or that it violated the constitutional rights of an employer, employee, or Union. The district court determined that Breeze’s complaint did not make the required showing.Breeze appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the NMB had fulfilled its statutory duty to investigate and acted within the broad bounds of its statutory discretion when it designated who could participate in the election, set the rules that governed that election, and held the election itself. The court concluded that Breeze's arguments did not point to any specific requirement in the RLA that the NMB violated, and were more in terms of policy and broad generalities as to what the RLA should provide. View "Breeze Aviation Group v. National Mediation Board" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Sterling Owens, an African American electric lineman, who worked for the Wyandotte County, Kansas Board of Public Utilities (BPU). BPU had a policy requiring all employees to maintain their primary residence in Wyandotte County. Owens, who also owned several properties, was accused of violating this policy. BPU conducted an investigation, which Owens claimed was discriminatory based on his race. He filed a formal workplace discrimination complaint, which led to an internal investigation that found no evidence of harassment or discrimination. Owens then filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and was granted the right to sue in federal district court. He filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.The case proceeded to a four-day jury trial. Owens was represented by two attorneys. His first-chair counsel, who had conducted all pretrial litigation, contracted COVID-19 midway through the trial and resorted to remote participation. The jury found BPU not liable on all counts. Owens appealed, asking for the jury’s verdict to be vacated and arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial and new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court emphasized that Owens failed to show he was prejudiced by the district court’s rulings. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Owens' motion for a mistrial and new trial. The court also rejected Owens' argument that his second-chair counsel's relative lack of experience led to prejudicial errors during the trial. The court concluded that Owens had not demonstrated that the alleged errors had a prejudicial impact on his right to a fair and impartial trial. View "Owens v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas" on Justia Law

The case involves Duke Bradford, Arkansas Valley Adventure (AVA), and the Colorado River Outfitters Association (CROA) who appealed against the District of Colorado’s order denying their motion to preliminarily enjoin a Department of Labor (DOL) rule. The rule required federal contractors to pay their employees a $15.00 minimum hourly wage. The DOL promulgated the rule pursuant to a directive in Executive Order (EO) 14,026, issued by President Biden. The EO imposed the minimum wage requirement on most federal contractors and rescinded an exemption for recreational services outfitters operating on federal lands.The appellants argued that the district court erred in concluding that the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA) authorizes the minimum wage rule as applied to recreational services permittees because the government does not procure any services from them or supply anything to them. They also argued that the DOL acted arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating the minimum wage rule without exempting recreational service permittees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the appellants have not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits that the DOL’s rule was issued without statutory authority. The court held that FPASA likely authorizes the minimum wage rule because the DOL’s rule permissibly regulates the supply of nonpersonal services and advances the statutory objectives of economy and efficiency. The court also held that the appellants have not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits that the DOL’s rule is arbitrary and capricious. View "Bradford v. U.S. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Lori Vogt, a deputy court clerk, who was fired by Lisa Rodebush, the McIntosh County Court Clerk, for not publicly supporting Rodebush's reelection campaign. Vogt had worked with Rodebush for thirteen years and had supported her in the past. However, during the 2020 reelection campaign, Vogt's best friend, a former employee of the County Court Clerk’s Office, ran against Rodebush. Vogt decided to support Rodebush privately but not publicly to maintain her friendship with Rodebush's opponent. Despite this, Vogt campaigned for Rodebush and provided advice for her campaign. Rodebush, however, was not satisfied with Vogt's level of support and eventually fired her after winning the election. Vogt then filed a lawsuit alleging that Rodebush violated her First Amendment rights of free speech and political affiliation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma denied Rodebush's motion for summary judgment, where she asserted qualified immunity. Rodebush appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that a public official cannot condition a subordinate’s employment on her political beliefs, affiliation, or non-affiliation, unless the government has a vital interest in doing so. The court held that Rodebush violated Vogt's First Amendment right to political affiliation by firing her for not publicly supporting her reelection campaign. The court also found that Vogt's right was clearly established at the time of the violation, thus defeating Rodebush's claim of qualified immunity. View "Vogt v. McIntosh County Board" on Justia Law