*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.