Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-appellant Darlene Low, an employee of the Southwestern Power Administration, filed a complaint against the Secretary of the Department of Energy asserting five claims: three retaliation claims and one hostile work environment claim, all pursuant to Title VII, and one claim brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The district court dealt with the merits of Lowâs case in separate orders: (1) the court granted Defendantâs motion to dismiss certain claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that any claims arising from actions in 2000 were unexhausted because Low had failed to timely contact an EEO counselor about them; (2) except for the hostile work environment claim, the balance of Lowâs claims were also unexhausted. Plaintiff filed a motion to amend her complaint to add two additional retaliation claims based on meetings held in August 2008. The court denied the motion. The parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment. At issue on the cross motions for summary judgment were two remaining claims: one for hostile work environment based on gender, and a second claim of discrimination based on gender or retaliation. The district court held that no reasonable jury could infer discrimination based on either claim. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded after thorough review of the partiesâ briefs, the record, and the applicable law that Plaintiff did not show any reversible error in this case. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dawn Bunch brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that Defendant Independent School District No. I-050 of Osage County (Prue Public Schools) violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. She appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the District in which the court concluded Plaintiff had no protected property interest in her employment and failed to show her speech was a motivating factor for her termination. An internal investigation found that Plaintiff âeither [. . .] wasnât properly trained or she was not doing her job as required.â The School Board in an open session, but without holding a due-process hearing, terminated Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff's complaint claimed a property interest in her employment contract entitled her to a hearing before her employment was terminated. She also alleged the termination was in retaliation for her exercise of free speech rights because, earlier that fall, she had signed a state-court petition calling for a grand jury investigation into the activities of Board members, and she had complained to friends and family about the Board. Upon review of the trial court's record and the applicable authority, the Tenth Circuit found that Plaintiff's proffered evidence of discrimination did not amount to the requisite proof that her civil and constitutional rights were violated. The Court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgement in favor of the District.

Plaintiff-Appellant Louanne Cypert brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and several anti-discrimination statutes alleging that Defendant Independent School District No. I-050 of Osage County's (Prue Public Schools) failure to renew her employment contract violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed the District discriminated against her because of her age. The district court granted the District summary judgment, finding that Plaintiff's non-renewal hearing satisfied her Fourteenth Amendment claim to due process, and that she failed to show her speech was the motivating factor that led to the District's non-renewal, and that she failed to show the District's non-renewal resulted from discrimination. In the fall of 2008, the local School Board became concerned about the Districtâs finances. It initiated an investigation and began terminating employment contracts. Plaintiff's contract was one of the terminated contracts. On appeal, Plaintiff proffered evidence of the Board's keeping younger, lesser-qualified personnel on staff at the time of her termination. Upon review of the trial court's record and the applicable authority, the Tenth Circuit found that Plaintiff's proffered evidence of discrimination did not amount to the requisite proof that her civil and constitutional rights were violated. The Court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgement in favor of the District.

Plaintiff-Appellant Terry Winne appealed a district court's order that dismissed his complaint for failing to state a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In 1999, Winne began working for the City of Lakewood, Colorado as an emergency dispatcher. In 2005, he was injured in an automobile accident, requiring that he take medication for headaches. A change in his medication in January 2008 caused him to âsuffer cognitive problems,â and he was placed on intermittent FMLA leave throughout âthe spring and summer.â On August 11, 2008, the City transferred Winne to the police departmentâs records section after a psychiatrist found him unfit for his dispatcher duties. Roughly two weeks later, the City fired Winne, âeven though he still had available FMLA leave.â The City stated âthat the termination was because of his attendance.â Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Plaintiff's complaint failed to allege the material elements necessary for his FMLA claim. The Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of his case.

Plaintiff-Appellant Chevron Mining, Inc. (CMI) appealed a district court's denial of its motion to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated CMI employee John Weston following his termination for just cause. CMI argued on appeal that the arbitrator's decision to reverse CMI's just-cause determination based on "forgivable" rule violations did not "draw its essence" from the governing collective bargaining agreement and that the award imposed contradicted and modified the CBA's terms. Upon review of the arbitration award, the collective bargaining agreement at issue and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found that the arbitrator's award was compliant with the governing CBA, and affirmed the arbitration award.

Petitioners Wayne Tomlinson, Alice Ballesteros and Gary Muckelroy appealed the dismissal of their claims against El Paso Corporation and the El Paso Pension Plan (collectively "El Paso") brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs' claims concern "wear-away" periods that occurred during El Paso's transition to a new pension plan. They contended that the wear-away periods violated the ADEA's prohibition on age discrimination and the anti-backloading and notice provisions of ERISA. The trial court found that El Paso's transition favored, rather than discriminated against, older employees; and the plan was frontloaded rather than backloaded. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit's review concluded that ERISA did not require notification of wear-away periods so long as employees were informed and forewarned of plan changes. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision dismissing Petitioners' claims.

Plaintiff Edward Simmons sued the Postmaster General of the United States claiming that the USPS discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment as a result of his disability. Plaintiff worked as a customer services supervisor at a Colorado facility. In this action, Plaintiff alleged that he was disabled by reason of a brain tumor and post-traumatic stress disorder. The USPS moved for summary judgment. Among its many reasons, the USPS argued that Plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 791, 794). The district court granted the USPS' motion, and Plaintiff appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that none of the arguments Plaintiff raised on appeal involved the district court's determination of his meeting the elements of his prima facie case. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgement.

Intervenor-Appellant Charles Dalton appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment to the Secretary of Labor and order to Defendant Copart, Inc. to pay him back pay with interest as the Secretary requested. Mr. Dalton worked as a salvage hauler for Copart until Copart fired him for refusing to drive his assigned truck. He filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) alleging that he reasonably refused to drive an unsafe truck. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found Mr. Dalton was entitled to receive his job back and receive back pay. Copart offered Mr. Dalton a job at its Detroit facility, but informed him that it would not pay for relocation, and that the plant would cease operations at the end of the same month, so he would be "permanently laid off" after two weeks. Mr. Dalton refused the offer and Copart terminated all of its remaining truck drivers. The Secretary of Labor brought this action to enforce the ALJ's order to Copart to pay Mr. Dalton back pay. All parties agreed Copart owed Mr. Dalton back pay, disputing only the end-date for the award. The district court granted the Secretary's motion thereby resolving the dispute concerning the date on which Mr. Dalton's back pay award ceased to accrue. Mr. Dalton appealed to the Tenth Circuit, disputing whether interest accrued while he waited for Copart to pay him. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court erred in not awarding interest until the judgment for back pay had been satisfied. The Court affirmed the district court's back pay calculation, but reversed it's interest calculation and remanded the case for additional proceedings.

Plaintiffs Cynthia Dudley-Barton, Richard Ice, Richard Mason, Deana Murphy and Susan Schmitz filed a class action lawsuit against Service Corporation International (SCI) based on allegedly unlawful employment practices and policies. Plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid wages based on SCI's purported failure to compensate its employees for time spent outside of regular work hours but on company business. In making these assertions, Plaintiffs brought four claims for violation of Colorado wage and labor laws, and state claims for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion and misrepresentation. Shortly after Plaintiffs filed their complaint, SCI removed the case to federal court. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. The district court granted Plaintiffs' motion, concluding that SCI had not established that the amount in controversy exceeded the $5 million jurisdictional threshold required under federal law. SCI appealed the remand to state court to the Tenth Circuit. But before SCI filed its appeal, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss their state court petition against SCI without prejudice. The Tenth Circuit subsequently granted SCI's petition for leave to appeal. The Tenth Circuit dismissed this appeal as moot.

Plaintiff Billy Merrifield brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against his former employer Defendant Board of Commissioners for Santa Fe. In his suit, he alleged he had been denied procedural due process with respect to the County's pre termination hearing process when he was fired from his position as a Youth Services Administrator. His complaint also alleged that he was fired in retaliation for retaining an attorney. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, and set aside a state administrative decision to award him back pay. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that Plaintiff failed to show that the County's pre termination process was constitutionally inadequate and that his association with an attorney lead to his termination.