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

Plaintiff-Appellant Anita Luster, an employee of the United States Forest Service, appealed a district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture on her claims of sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Plaintiff, a full-time Visitor Information Specialist (VIS) with the Forest Service, claimed that: (1) she was not selected for a Forestry Technician position because of her gender; (2) she suffered disparate work conditions because of her gender and in retaliation for her Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) discrimination complaint; and (3) a Forest Service attorney inappropriately disclosed her EEO complaint information in violation of the Privacy Act. The Tenth Circuit "commend[ed] the district court for its thorough and well-reasoned order granting the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment" and affirmed, finding no error in the court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff Timothy J. Smith appealed a district court order that granted summary judgment for his employer, Defendant Morton International, Inc., (Morton), on his claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court held Smith’s claim failed at the prima facie case stage for two distinct reasons: he had not shown either that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA or that Morton had discriminated against him on the basis of his alleged disability. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed that Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of his alleged disability, and affirmed on that basis without reaching the discrimination issue.

Two former employees of the Kansas Unified School District #501 filed administrative charges against the District following claims of wage discrimination. Dwight Almond, III and Kevin Weems were both offered and accepted new positions with lesser pay within the District rather than be fired from a District-wide downsizing effort. Both filed their claims in 2006, several years after the alleged pay discrimination took place. The district court held that the men had waited too long to seek administrative review, and that delay had the effect of barring their lawsuits altogether. In the pendency of the employees' appeal of the district court's dismissal, Congress enacted the "Ledbetter Act" specifically aimed at addressing "discrimination in compensation" claims in which members of a protected class receive less pay than similarly situated colleagues. The employees raised multiple claims on appeal, including a violation of the Ledbetter Act. Upon review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that because the employees in this case didn't raise an unequal pay for equal work claim, they did not benefit from the Act’s comparatively generous deadlines, so preexisting accrual rules applied. Under those rules, the employees' claims were untimely and accordingly dismissed.

Plaintiff-Appellant Cherie Lopez-Fisher claimed Defendant-Appellee Abbott Laboratories fired her because of her gender, race, color and national origin. After receiving extensive briefing and hearing oral argument in this Title VII case, a magistrate judge entered an order granting summary judgment to Abbott Labs. In her appellate brief, Plaintiff insisted that because she successfully passed a "Performance Improvement Plan" conducted by Abbott Labs, her termination a week later raised an inference of discrimination. The magistrate judge found no evidence in the record that Plaintiff passed the Plan. Furthermore, the magistrate concluded that Plaintiff did not overcome her burden of proof that Abbott Labs' proffered reason for terminating Plaintiff (poor performance) was pretext for discrimination. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit adopted the magistrate judge's ruling in affirming dismissal of Plaintiff's case.

Plaintiff-Appellant Lawrence Harris filed a pro se complaint naming the "Tulsa 66ers" NBA Development League basketball team and two individual employees of the team as defendants. Harris sought damages from the defendants for "herresment" and "false adveretisement" due to the fact that he was not selected to play for the team after attending an open tryout in October 2010. From Plaintiff's filings, the court could not determine whether it had jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. The Tenth Circuit determined the district court was correct in concluding it did not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, and affirmed the court's ruling and dismissed Plaintiff's case.

Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation (Boston Scientific) filed suit to enforce a non-compete agreement against Mikelle Mabey, a former employee, and St. Jude Medical Neuromodulation Division (St. Jude), her new employer. The district court held in favor of Mabey and St. Jude, and Boston Scientific appealed. In 2009, after Mabey had worked for Boston Scientific for three years, the company asked her to sign a non-compete agreement. If she signed, she would remain eligible for a quarterly bonus that had been offered the year before. If she did not sign, Boston Scientific would reduce her bonus eligibility by $1,000 for each of the final three quarters of 2009; however, she would remain employed at-will and would continue to receive the same base salary. Mabey signed the agreement in March. As a result, she earned $3,000 more in bonus pay than if she had not signed the agreement. In May 2010, Mabey left Boston Scientific to work for its competitor, St.Jude. Boston Scientific filed suit in Utah federal district court to enforce the non-compete agreement. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court concluded that the non-compete was unenforceable due to a lack of consideration because Boston Scientific "merely kept Mabey’s compensation the same" in exchange for her signing the agreement, and that "no more constituted a 'clear additional benefit' than continuing a person’s employment does in an at-will employment situation." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit was unpersuaded by Mabey's "failure of consideration" argument: in exchange for signing the non-compete, Mabey received a benefit to which, as an at-will employee, she had no legal right. This was sufficient to form a valid agreement. The Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff John Ensey was employed by both Defendant Ozzie’s Pipeline Padder, Inc. (Ozzie’s) and Rockford Corporation when he was severely injured. He sued Ozzie’s but was denied relief on the ground that Ozzie’s was protected by the exclusive-remedy provision of the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act. Plaintiff appealed, contending that Ozzie’s could not invoke the exclusivity provision because it failed to show that it contributed to paying for the workers’ compensation policy obtained by co-employer Rockford. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that under New Mexico law Ozzie’s was protected by the exclusivity provision because its contract with Rockford required Rockford to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff failed to produce evidence to overcome the inference that Ozzie’s therefore contributed to paying the insurance premium. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment that denied him relief.

Pro se Petitioner Katherine Slocum appealed the district court's dismissal with prejudice her claims against Corporate Express U.S., Inc., Corporate Express Office Products, Inc., (Corporate Express), Cox Communications Central II, Inc., Cox Oklahoma Telcom, LLC, Coxcom, Inc., (Cox), Journal Broadcast Group, Inc., and Journal Broadcast Group of Kansas, Inc., (Journal Broadcast). Petitioner's suit revolved around allegations that Defendants engaged in illegal surveillance, harassment and discrimination. The complaint, which sought $40 million in actual damages and $20 million in punitive damages, also asserted claims of (among other things) trespass, computer crime, slander, aggravated assault, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, insurance fraud, contributory negligence, and wrongful termination. The district court concluded that Petitioner's allegations failed to survive motions to dismiss. On appeal in a 63-page brief, Petitioner mainly re-alleged the claims made at the district court and contends that they were improperly dismissed, in addition to making other procedural and substantive arguments. The Tenth Circuit reviewed other contentions raised by Petitioner in this appeal and found them to be without merit. Some of these arguments, along with new factual assertions, were first made in her reply brief, which the Court declined to consider. Accordingly the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal.

Plaintiff Dennis Carter began working as a directional driller at Pathfinder Energy Services, Inc., in December 2004. Two years later, declining health had caused a reduction in Plaintiff's workload. Pathfinder fired Plaintiff for "gross misconduct" based primarily on an altercation that he had had with a coworker and his language and attitude during a conversation with his supervisor. Plaintiff sued Pathfinder in federal district court, alleging that Pathfinder had violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). He also alleged that Pathfinder had breached his implied-in-fact employment contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Pathfinder on all three claims. Upon careful review, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Plaintiff's ADA claim, but affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the remaining claims. Specifically, the Tenth Court held that "[a] reasonable jury could conclude that [Plaintiff] has made out a prima facie case of discrimination and has established that Pathfinder’s asserted justification for his firing was pretextual. At this stage of the case, that is enough." The Court remanded the case for further proceedings on the ADA claim.

Plaintiff James Williams appealed a district court's denial of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to file a complaint and have it served. In June 2011, Mr. Williams filed a complaint against his former employer, Cherokee Nation Entertainment, LLC, alleging he was terminated in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. Plaintiff petitioned the district court for leave to proceed IFP and provided an affidavit alleging he was unemployed and disabled, and thus unable to pay the cost to file his suit. Plaintiff reported average monthly income from unemployment benefits and education assistance totaling $2,200, and monthly expenses totaling $300. Additionally, Plaintiff listed assets of $1025 and debt for unpaid medical bills. The district court determined that Plaintiff was able to pay court fees and costs and therefore denied his petition. Finding no error in the district court's ruling, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. Plaintiff also petitioned for leave to proceed IFP on appeal. The Court granted that motion based upon an updated affidavit and financial declaration Plaintiff provided on appeal.