Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The Court affirmed the lower courtâs grant of summary judgment to Defendant, the Department of the Interior. Plaintiff-Appellant Villalpando sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Colorado state law, alleging the Department passed him over for a promotion based on his race and national origin. Both Plaintiff and Defendant did not dispute the otherâs meeting their respective burdens of proof under Title VII and Colorado case law. In meeting its burden, Plaintiff argued that the real reason behind Defendantâs alleged non-discriminatory reasons for passing him over was pretext for discrimination. However, the Court held that because Plaintiff conceded Defendantâs proffered non-discriminatory reasons, he remained âvulnerable to summary judgment because [his] concession of a lawful motiveâ removed motive as an issue from a juryâs purvey, âand preclude[d] the inference of a discriminatory motive that the jury could otherwise draw from the fact of pretext.â

The Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision dismissing Plaintiff-Appellant David Gerasâ contract claim for unpaid commissions and severance against his former employer International Business Machines (IBM). IBM canceled its sales incentive plan under which Geras maintained he accrued sales commissions worth over $100,000. The Court held that under Colorado law, the planâs incentive letter contained an effective disclaimer, and did not manifest an intent to be bound by the terms of its plan.

The employee attempted to enroll in his employer's ERISA-regulated health care plan. The employer deducted premiums, but did not enroll the employee, who subsequently left the company and fell ill. The employee won $157,182 plus attorney fees under ERISA, then filed state law claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract, which the employer removed to federal court. The district court denied remand and dismissed the claims as res judicata. The Tenth Circuit ordered remand to state court, holding that the state law claims are not completely preempted by ERISA and that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over those claims. While he was employed by the company, the employee would have had standing, under ERISA, to challenge the actions underlying the state claims; at the time he filed the suit, he did not have standing. Having already won an ERISA award, the employee no longer qualified as a former employee with a colorable ERISA claim.