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.
Labels: Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment, Procedure, Retaliation, Retirement Pension, Summary Judgment, Teachers, Tenth Circuit, United States Supreme Court, Workers Compensation