Thursday, March 29, 2018

Cases --- March 4th through 10th, 2018

Discrimination/Retaliation/Wrongful Termination

Knopf v. Williams (10th Cir., March 5, 2018) (reversing
summary judgment denying Mayor Williams qualified immunity on Knopf's protected-speech retaliation claim: Knopf did not carry his burden to show violation of an established constitutional right:  his speech was not protected private speech)

*Sidlo v. MillerCoors, LLC (10th Cir., March 7, 2018) (affirming summary judgment for MillerCoors on Sidlo's national-origin- and age-discrimination claims:  Sidlo failed to establish a prima-facie case of discriminatory treatment)

*Rowe v. DPI Specialty Foods, Inc. (10th Cir., March 7, 2018) (affirming denial of DPI's motion for judgment as a matter of law:  jury could conclude that Rowe was terminated because of DPI's defamation)

*Dish Network, LLC, v. National Labor Relations Board (10th Cir., March 7, 2018) (affirming the ALJ determination that Dish Network violated the NLRA by firing of Mr. Rabb for soliciting coworkers to join a lawsuit over Dish Network's pay practices)

*Williams-Jackson v. Innovative Senior Care (10th Cir., March 8, 2018) (vacating the denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss or stay in favor of arbitration and remanding)

*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.

Friday, March 23, 2018

Cases --- February 25th through March 3rd, 2018

Discrimination/Retaliation

*Starr v. Quiktrip Corporation (10th Cir., March 1, 2018) (affirming judgment in favor of Quiktrip on Starr's Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act:  Starr did not show any reversible error.

*Winston v. Ross (10th Cir., February 27, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the National Weather Service (Ross): Winston did not establish a prima facie discrimination or retaliation claim, protected activity did not cause the alleged retaliation and the incidents alleged did not amount to adverse employment action)

Wages

Fernandez v. Clean House, LLC (10th Cir., March 2, 2018) (reversing dismissal in favor of Clean House:  Fernandez did not need to anticipate statute of limitations defense; in any case, her allegation of willfulness was adequate)


*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.

Cases --- February 18th through 24th, 2018


*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.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Cases --- February 11th through 17th, 2018

Discrimination/Retaliation

*Campos v. Mantech International Corporation (10th Cir., February 13, 2018) (affirming denial of Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration: such a motion is not the appropriate way to present arguments that could have been raised previously, nor as a substitute for taking an appeal)

*Gatewood v. VA GOV. Compensation (10th Cir., February 13, 2018) (affirming dismissal of "unintelligible" Title VII complaint)


*Armour v. Universal Protection Services (10th Cir., February 16, 2018) (affirming dismissal or Armour's discrimination suit for failure to state a claim: her complaint contained only speculation that Universal's conduct had discriminatory or retaliatory motive)

*Nunez v. Lifetime Products, Inc. (10th Cir., February 16, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Lifetime on Nunez's age discrimination, disability, and family and medical leave claims: some of his claims were time-barred, he failed to meet his burden as to accommodation, and he failed to demonstrate pretext)

*Woesler v. Utah Valley University (10th Cir., February 13, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of UVU on Woesler's hostile work environment, disparate treatment, retaliation, and subordinate bias claims)


Miscellaneous


In re Discipline of LaJeunesse (Utah, February 16, 2018) (affirming dismissal of professional conduct charge---8.4(d) "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice"---against LaJeunesse, the presiding ALJ for the Labor Commission:  a lawyer's conduct is not  prejudicial to the administration of justice because he adopts, mistakenly but in good faith, an interpretation of law governing his exercise of quasi-judicial authority)


Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease

*Boettcher v. Conoco Phillips (10th Cir., February 12, 2018) (affirming dismissal of the Boettchers' complaint because it failed to plead facts sufficient to support application of the discovery rule to the claim that Mr. Boettcher's cancer was caused by exposure to refinery emissions)


*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.

Saturday, March 3, 2018

Cases --- February 4th through 10th, 2018

Discrimination/Retaliation

*Gardenhire v. Manville (10th Circuit, February 7, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Manville on Gardenhire's ADA claims (Manville made reasonable accommodations) and his FMLA claims for retaliation (lack of causation), interference (none with his FMLA rights), and Title VII racial discrimination (white employees were not similarly situated)) 


Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease


Spring Creek Coal Company v. McLean (10th Circuit, February 5, 2018)(affirming Department of Labor award of survivors’ benefits to Susan McLean under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq.) 


*Perez v. Denver Fire Department (10th Circuit, February 7, 2018) (affirming ruling that supervisor did not disclose confidential information that Perez suffered from PTSD, information was inferred from voluntary disclosures by Perez outside medical examination)



*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.