Saturday, February 13, 2016

Cases --- February 7th through 13th

Discrimination/Retaliation

*Farris v. Garden City, Kansas (10th Cir., February 9, 2016) (affirming dismissal because Farris failed to sufficiently allege he was a qualified individual with adisability or that he suffered intentional discrimination)

Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease

*Johnson v. Colvin (10th Cir., February 10, 2016) (affirming the judgement of the district court upholding the Commissioner's denial of benefits based on questions of credibility)

*Berumen v. Colvin (10th Cir., February 10, 2016) (affirming denial of disability benefits, based in part on ALJ determinations regarding concentration, persistence, and pace limitations)

*Stewart v. Colvin (10th Cir., February 11, 2016) (affirming denial of disability insurance benefits because Stewart presented, only on appeal, insufficient evidence---bipolar disorder and suicide---of her husband's mental disability)

*Wahpekeche v. Colvin (10th Cir., February 11, 2016) (affirming denial of disability benefits based on credibility and physical limitations questions)

*Calhoun v. Colvin (10th Cir., February 11, 2016) (affirming denial of extension to file appeal based on Calhoun's untimely request, and dismissing his merits appeal)

*Richards v. Colvin (10th Cir., February 12, 2016) (affirming denial of disability andsupplemental benefits based on review of issues not raised below, learning disability, simple work limitations, GAF scores, and credibility)

*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.  They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Cases --- January 24th through 30th

Discrimination/Retaliation

*Montoya v. Hunter Douglas Window Fashions, Inc. (10th Cir., January 25, 2016) (affirming summary judgement in favor of defendant because Montoya failed to show pretext for either her discrimination claim or herretaliation claim)


*Mancell v. McHugh, Secretary of the Army (10th Cir., January 25, 2016) (affirming summary judgement in favor of defendant on Mancell's discrimination and retaliation claims)


*Lester v. City of Lafayette, Colorado (10th Cir., January 26, 2016) (reversing award to defendant of fees and costs associated with a motion to compel discovery in connection with underlying ADA and rehabilitation claims)



*Nyanjom v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. (10th Cir., January 28, 2016) (affirming summary judgement in favor of defendant on Nyanjom's disability and retaliation claims)

*Unal v. Los Alamos Public Schools (10th Cir., January 29, 2016) (reversing summary judgement in favor of Defendant on Unal's national-origin hostile-work-environment claim, but affirming on her retaliation claim)

*Hannah v. Cowlishaw (10th Cir., January 29, 2016) (reversing denial of qualified immunity to a section 1981 racial discrimination claim, but remanding with instructions that Hannah be permitted to amend his complaint to include a section 1983 claim)

ERISA

Amgen Inc. v. Harris (U.S., January 25, 2016) (reversing the Ninth Circuit's determination that the complaint stated sufficient facts and allegations to state a claim for breach of the duty of prudence against fiduciaries managing Amgen's employee stock ownership plan, and remanding for possible amendment)

Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease

*Parker v. Colvin (10th Cir., January 29, 2016) (affirming reduction of retirement and spousal benefits under the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset)

*Evans v. Colvin (10th Cir., January 29, 2016) (affirming denial of attorneys fees claim because, though the denying commissioner's position was incorrect, it was still substantially justified)

*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.  They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.