Friday, November 30, 2018

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

Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease

*Bryant v. Commissioner (10th Cir., November 23, 2018) (reversing denial of disability benefits: the administrative law judge improperly evaluated her medical provider’s opinions

*The 10th Circuit has declared this case not to be 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 --- November 11th through 17th, 2018

Retirement, ERISA and Employee Pension Plans

Hackford v. Utah State Retirement Board (Utah Ct. App., November 16, 2018) (declining to disturb the Board's decision that Hackford's early retirement is subject to the early retirement reduction)

Workers Compensation

*Lauer v. Commissioner (10th Cir., November 14, 2018) (reversing denial of disability benefits: the ALJ failed to properly take into account Lauer’s headaches or doctor's medical opinion)



*Cases marked with an asterisk are 10th Circuit cases the court declared not to be 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, November 10, 2018

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

Contract/Noncompete/Trade Secret/Wrongful Termination

Skolnick v. Exodus Healthcare Network, PLLC (Utah Ct. App., November 8, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Skolnick on her claim for breach of contract: Exodus’s obligation to pay Skolnick was not subject to any condition precedent)


Discrimination/Retaliation


*Ombe v. State of New Mexico (10th Cir., November 8, 2018) (affirming judgment against him on his numerous claims (for disability discrimination, age discrimination, and various civil rights violations) against numerous entities and state employees)

Potts v. Center for Excellence (10th Cir., November 6, 2018) (affirming dismissal of Potts's retaliation claim: the False Claims Act's anti-retaliation provision doesn't apply when the retaliatory act occurs after employment ends)

Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido (U.S., November 6, 2018) (affirming Ninth Circuit determination that "also means," in the definition of employer in ADEA § 630(b) establishes two separate categories: persons employing 20 or more people and states or political subdivisions, with no numerosity limitation)

Wages

Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc. (10th Cir., November 9, 2018)
(affirming summary judgment in favor of defendants on Nesbitt's FLSA claim that massage-therapy students qualified as employees and should be paid minimum wage: students were not employees: it would be illegal to pay unlicensed students before they had completed their training)


*Cases marked with an asterisk are 10th Circuit cases the court declared not to be 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, November 7, 2018

Cases --- October 28th through November 3rd, 2018

Discrimination/Retaliation

*Bryant v. United States Postal Service (10th Cir., November 2, 2018) (reversing dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction and remanding for dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies)

*Cases marked with an asterisk are 10th Circuit cases the court declared not to be 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 --- October 21st through 27th, 2018

Discrimination/Retaliation

*Herrera v. United Airlines, Inc. (10th Cir., October 22, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of United: Herrera could show no pretext in his termination, and United's reasons were legitimate and nondiscriminatory)

*Cases marked with an asterisk are 10th Circuit cases the court declared not to be 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.