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

Plaintiff Air Method Corporation terminated a helicopter pilot, Jeff Stackpole, following a 2010 incident. Defendant Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 109 (OPEIU) represented Mr. Stackpole throughout the arbitration process. After the arbitration award was granted in Mr. Stackpole’s favor, Plaintiff filed a complaint against OPEIU Local 109 pursuant to the Railway Labor Act, seeking to vacate the award. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of Defendants, thereby upholding the arbitration award. Plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the arbitration award. View "Air Methods Corporation v. OPEIU, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner Sara Debord filed suit against her employer, Mercy Health Services of Kansas, for sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Petitioner claimed Mercy knew or should have known that her supervisor created a hostile workplace through unwanted touching and offensive sexual remarks. She also claimed that Mercy did not do enough to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, and that, when she finally reported the harassment, Mercy retaliated by firing her. After reviewing the evidence at summary judgment, the district court concluded there was no triable issue of material fact. The Tenth Circuit, after its review of the matter, agreed with the district court: the record did not disclose that Mercy knew or should have known about petitioner's allegations of a hostile workplace, and she did not provide a reasonable explanation for the nearly five years she waited to first report the harassment. Nor was there a genuine dispute about whether Mercy honestly held legitimate reasons for terminating Debord based on its conclusion that she was dishonest and disruptive during Mercy's investigation of allegations about her supervisor's conduct and claims she improperly received extra pay. View "Debord v. Mercy Health System of Kansas, et al" on Justia Law

Jose Hernandez, Jr., and Salvador Hernandez were killed by a motorist while they were performing road construction in Oklahoma. Their representative sued their employer, Duit Construction Company, and the motorist and alleged a substantive due process claims against multiple Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) employees. All ODOT employees (except the director and the resident engineer on the construction project) were dismissed by the district court. The question before the Tenth Circuit in this case was whether the two remaining employees were entitled to qualified immunity. The district judge said no; but because the alleged facts revealed no constitutional violation, the Tenth Circuit reversed. View "Hernandez v. Ridley, et al" on Justia Law

George Roberts said IBM fired him because of his age. He argued an instant message exchange between two of the company’s human resources managers referencing his "shelf life" played a direct role in his eventual discharge. The Tenth Circuit concluded that after its review of the evidence presented at trial, the term "shelf life" had nothing to do with Roberts’s age and everything to do with his workload. "Once its euphemisms and acronyms are translated into English, the instant message conversation unmistakably suggests that 'shelf life' was nothing worse than an inartful reference to Mr. Roberts’s queue of billable work. And that is more than enough to preclude it from amounting to direct evidence of discrimination in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act." View "Roberts v. IBM" on Justia Law

Michael Lobato was a probationary employee at the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED). Before completing his probationary period, Lobato was fired. Lobato, who is Hispanic and of Mexican ancestry, alleged that the proffered rationales were pretextual and that NMED was in fact motivated by racial and national origin prejudice. He also alleged NMED wanted to punish him for whistleblowing. The district court granted summary judgment to NMED on all claims, and the Tenth Circuit agreed with that decision. Lobato failed to raise a genuine dispute that NMED’s decision to terminate him was motivated by anything other than the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons NMED offered in its termination letter. View "Lobato v. State of NM Environment Dept., et al" on Justia Law

Abercrombie & Fitch appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the court’s denial of summary judgment in favor of Abercrombie, on the EEOC’s claim that Abercrombie failed to provide a reasonable religious accommodation for a prospective employee, Samantha Elauf in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Abercrombie was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Ms. Elauf ever informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore a hijab for religious reasons and that she needed an accommodation for that practice because of Abercrombie’s clothing policy. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate its judgment and for entry of judgment in favor of Abercrombie. View "EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch" on Justia Law

Derek Braswell suffered a horrific workplace accident: while operating a press brake manufactured by Cincinnati, Inc., his right arm was crushed, and eventually had to be amputated. Despite warnings, Braswell reached into the die area to remove a jammed piece of metal. The machine's safety equipment designed to prevent this type of accident had been removed or disabled sometime prior to the accident. After his injury, Braswell filed a suit against Cincinnati on theories of strict products liability and negligence. The district court granted summary judgment for Cincinnati on the grounds that a subsequent owner had modified the press brake to create the danger and that the gated pedal on the original model made the press brake not unreasonably dangerous. The Tenth Circuit agreed that the press brake was not unreasonably dangerous: with its warnings and safety devices, the machine did not pose a danger beyond that which the ordinary operator of the machine would appreciate. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Braswell v. Cincinnati Incorporated, et al" on Justia Law

Dr. Ron Genova sued Banner Health after the hospital terminated his employment. He argued among other things that Banner retaliated against him for complaints about working conditions. In addition, Dr. Genova brought a claim under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for Banner to terminate the doctor for cause, and that his EMTALA was without merit. View "Genova v. Banner Health, et al" on Justia Law

Employees of Solvay Chemicals, Inc. brought an ERISA claim against the company for what they contended was improper notice with regard to changes in the company retirement program. At one time the company offered a defined benefit plan, but changed it to a "cash balance" plan that required a defined contribution from the company (rather than defined payments to employees). While the Tenth Circuit held that the company violated its notice obligations with regard to preexisting early retirement subsidies, the notice was sufficient in all other respects. As remedy for the defective notice, employees asked that the company revert back to the abandoned defined benefit plan. The district court found that the company's notice failure was not "egregious" to grant the employees' requested relief. The employees appealed the district court's denial of their request. Agreeing that the employees were not entitled to their requested relief, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Jensen, et al v. Solvay Chemicals, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Cynthia Pfeifer filed suit against Defendant-Appellee Federal Express Corporation in the District of Kansas, alleging that the company fired her in retaliation for receiving workers' compensation benefits. Plaintiff filed suit fifteen months following the termination within the applicable state statute of limitations, but outside the limit of six months enumerated in her employment agreement. The district court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the contract clause was reasonable and was not a violation of public policy. Because no Kansas law appeared to control the outcome of the case, the Tenth Circuit certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court regarding the ability of parties to shorten the applicable statute of limitations by contract, and if not, then was the six-month limitation unreasonable in this case? The Kansas Court responded that the contract clause in question here did violate public policy. Because of that answer, the Court did not respond to the Tenth Circuit's second question. In light of these answers, the federal district court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Pfeifer v. Federal Express Corporation" on Justia Law