Discrimination/Retaliation
*Bejar v. Department of Veterans Affairs (10th Circuit, March 28, 2017) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the Department of Veterans Affairs because Bejar could not show evidence of discrimination)
*McCoy v. State of Wyoming (10th Circuit, March 28, 2017) (affirming dismissal of McCoy's complaint, among other things, because it lacked any plausible discrimination claim, and he waived any challenge to his retaliation claim)
*Poff v. Oklahoma Dept. of Mental Health (10th Circuit, March 30, 2017) (affirming dismissal of tort and free speech claims and of summary judgment in favor of Oklahoma on gender discrimination and retaliation claims because neither plaintiff could show pretext)
*Bejar v. Department of Veterans Affairs (10th Circuit, March 28, 2017) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the Department of Veterans Affairs because Bejar could not show evidence of discrimination)
*McCoy v. State of Wyoming (10th Circuit, March 28, 2017) (affirming dismissal of McCoy's complaint, among other things, because it lacked any plausible discrimination claim, and he waived any challenge to his retaliation claim)
*Poff v. Oklahoma Dept. of Mental Health (10th Circuit, March 30, 2017) (affirming dismissal of tort and free speech claims and of summary judgment in favor of Oklahoma on gender discrimination and retaliation claims because neither plaintiff could show pretext)
Wages
*Combs v. Jaguar Energy Services, LLC (10th Circuit, March 31, 2017) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Jaguar on Combs's overtime claim because he fell within the Colorado Minimum Wage Order's exemption for "interstate drivers," etc.)
Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease
JP's Landscaping v. Labor Commission (Utah Ct. App., March 30, 2017) (substantial evidence supported Commission decision on employee injury: no improper advocacy; referral to medical panel was proper. No abuse of discretion in Commission discovery denial)
*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.