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

Plaintiff-Appellant Chevron Mining, Inc. (CMI) appealed a district court's denial of its motion to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated CMI employee John Weston following his termination for just cause. CMI argued on appeal that the arbitrator's decision to reverse CMI's just-cause determination based on "forgivable" rule violations did not "draw its essence" from the governing collective bargaining agreement and that the award imposed contradicted and modified the CBA's terms. Upon review of the arbitration award, the collective bargaining agreement at issue and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found that the arbitrator's award was compliant with the governing CBA, and affirmed the arbitration award.

Petitioners Wayne Tomlinson, Alice Ballesteros and Gary Muckelroy appealed the dismissal of their claims against El Paso Corporation and the El Paso Pension Plan (collectively "El Paso") brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs' claims concern "wear-away" periods that occurred during El Paso's transition to a new pension plan. They contended that the wear-away periods violated the ADEA's prohibition on age discrimination and the anti-backloading and notice provisions of ERISA. The trial court found that El Paso's transition favored, rather than discriminated against, older employees; and the plan was frontloaded rather than backloaded. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit's review concluded that ERISA did not require notification of wear-away periods so long as employees were informed and forewarned of plan changes. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision dismissing Petitioners' claims.

Plaintiff Edward Simmons sued the Postmaster General of the United States claiming that the USPS discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment as a result of his disability. Plaintiff worked as a customer services supervisor at a Colorado facility. In this action, Plaintiff alleged that he was disabled by reason of a brain tumor and post-traumatic stress disorder. The USPS moved for summary judgment. Among its many reasons, the USPS argued that Plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 791, 794). The district court granted the USPS' motion, and Plaintiff appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that none of the arguments Plaintiff raised on appeal involved the district court's determination of his meeting the elements of his prima facie case. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgement.

Intervenor-Appellant Charles Dalton appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment to the Secretary of Labor and order to Defendant Copart, Inc. to pay him back pay with interest as the Secretary requested. Mr. Dalton worked as a salvage hauler for Copart until Copart fired him for refusing to drive his assigned truck. He filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) alleging that he reasonably refused to drive an unsafe truck. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found Mr. Dalton was entitled to receive his job back and receive back pay. Copart offered Mr. Dalton a job at its Detroit facility, but informed him that it would not pay for relocation, and that the plant would cease operations at the end of the same month, so he would be "permanently laid off" after two weeks. Mr. Dalton refused the offer and Copart terminated all of its remaining truck drivers. The Secretary of Labor brought this action to enforce the ALJ's order to Copart to pay Mr. Dalton back pay. All parties agreed Copart owed Mr. Dalton back pay, disputing only the end-date for the award. The district court granted the Secretary's motion thereby resolving the dispute concerning the date on which Mr. Dalton's back pay award ceased to accrue. Mr. Dalton appealed to the Tenth Circuit, disputing whether interest accrued while he waited for Copart to pay him. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court erred in not awarding interest until the judgment for back pay had been satisfied. The Court affirmed the district court's back pay calculation, but reversed it's interest calculation and remanded the case for additional proceedings.

Plaintiffs Cynthia Dudley-Barton, Richard Ice, Richard Mason, Deana Murphy and Susan Schmitz filed a class action lawsuit against Service Corporation International (SCI) based on allegedly unlawful employment practices and policies. Plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid wages based on SCI's purported failure to compensate its employees for time spent outside of regular work hours but on company business. In making these assertions, Plaintiffs brought four claims for violation of Colorado wage and labor laws, and state claims for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion and misrepresentation. Shortly after Plaintiffs filed their complaint, SCI removed the case to federal court. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. The district court granted Plaintiffs' motion, concluding that SCI had not established that the amount in controversy exceeded the $5 million jurisdictional threshold required under federal law. SCI appealed the remand to state court to the Tenth Circuit. But before SCI filed its appeal, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss their state court petition against SCI without prejudice. The Tenth Circuit subsequently granted SCI's petition for leave to appeal. The Tenth Circuit dismissed this appeal as moot.

Plaintiff Billy Merrifield brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against his former employer Defendant Board of Commissioners for Santa Fe. In his suit, he alleged he had been denied procedural due process with respect to the County's pre termination hearing process when he was fired from his position as a Youth Services Administrator. His complaint also alleged that he was fired in retaliation for retaining an attorney. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, and set aside a state administrative decision to award him back pay. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that Plaintiff failed to show that the County's pre termination process was constitutionally inadequate and that his association with an attorney lead to his termination.

Plaintiff Michelle Christian appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Defendant AHS Tulsa Regional Medical Center (Hospital), on her Title VII sex discrimination claims. Plaintiff described four situations where her immediate supervisor made sexually charged comments, and two situations where he leaned against her while she was at a computer or copy machine. Plaintiff brought this action against the Hospital, raising claims of hostile work environment, retaliation, negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Hospital successfully moved for summary judgment on each of the claims. The district court made two rulings relevant to this appeal: (1) Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because no rational jury could conclude that the conduct "however obnoxious" was pervasive enough to have altered the work environment; and (2) the Hospital asserted an affirmative defense that its investigation into the situations was reasonable. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact with regard to the Hospital's affirmative defense. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision.

The issues central to this case are whether donning doffing poultry processing workers’ personal protective equipment is "changing clothes" under 29 U.S.C. 204 and whether a turkey processing plant is a “food and beverage industry” under Colorado law. Plaintiffs/Appellants Clara Salazar and Juanita Ybarra brought suit on behalf of hourly production employees at Defendant/Appellee Butterball, LLC’s Colorado turkey processing plant. Plaintiffs claimed that Butterball’s failure to compensate them for the time spent changing in and out of their personal protective equipment violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order. The district court entered summary judgment in Butterball’s favor, holding that the donning and doffing time was excluded and that the Colorado Wage Order did not apply to Butterball. Upon consideration of the submitted briefs and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Court found that donning and doffing time is not "hours worked" as defined by FLSA. Furthermore, Butterball is a reseller, and the Colorado regulation applied only to employers "that sell food directly to the consuming public." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s decisions.

Defendant Herman Ransom appealed a district court's denial of his motion for acquittal or for a new trial after he was convicted on wire fraud and theft of public money. Defendant was accused of falsifying his time sheets from work at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). When Defendant took full-day leaves, he listed "8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m." as his working hours. Though an assistant prepared the time sheets, he signed them and a supervisor approved them. The records were then forwarded via wire to a central processing unit. HUD received an anonymous complaint about Defendant's frequent absences from the office, and an internal investigation would reveal the discrepancy in his time sheets. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant challenged the validity of the evidence presented against him at trial. Upon review of the record and the applicable legal standard, the Tenth Circuit found sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction on wire fraud and theft charges. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision and Defendant's conviction.

Plaintiff-Appellant Patricia Simmons appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to her former employer, Defendant-Appellee Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated. Ms. Simmons claimed Sykes terminated her on the basis of her age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621. The district court concluded that Ms. Simmons failed to establish that Sykes' reason for terminating her was pretextual, and dismissed her case. In early 2007, Ms. Simmons claimed that the workplace environment got decidedly hostile towards her. Later that year, an aggrieved employee complained to Sykes management that someone within the company had improperly disclosed the employee's confidential medical information. Ms. Simmons was implicated as the source of the confidential information. After her termination, Ms. Simmons filed a complaint with the EEOC, which in turn, resulted in a formal complaint before the district court. The Tenth Circuit found that the undisputed facts in this case permitted only one inference: "absent the alleged discriminatory bias, Sykes would still have fired Ms. Simmons because from Sykes' perspective, she violated company policy and could not be trusted with confidential information." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to Sykes Enterprises.