Cases — December 11th through 17th
Contract/Noncompete/Trade Secret/Wrongful Termination
*Coleman v. Utah State Charter School Board (10th Cir., December 16, 2016) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the Board because its members were entitled to qualified immunity)
Discrimination/Retaliation
*Jackson v. J.R. Simplot Co. (10th Cir., Dec. 15, 2016) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Simplot on Jackson’s pregnancy discrimination claim, under the McDonnell Douglas test)
*Ewing v. Doubletree DTWC (10th Cir., Dec. 14, 2016) (affirming summary judgement in favor of Doubltree on Ewings three ADA claims, because Doubletree had no knowledge of the disability and “[t]he ADA does not require clairvoyance”)
ERISA and Employee Pension Plans
*Amador v. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust (10th Cir., December 16, 2016) (affirming summary judgment against plaintiffs because the trust was neither arbitrary nor capricious in withholding benefits for failure to complete necessary IRS levy forms)
*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.
*Coleman v. Utah State Charter School Board (10th Cir., December 16, 2016) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the Board because its members were entitled to qualified immunity)
Discrimination/Retaliation
*Jackson v. J.R. Simplot Co. (10th Cir., Dec. 15, 2016) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Simplot on Jackson’s pregnancy discrimination claim, under the McDonnell Douglas test)
*Ewing v. Doubletree DTWC (10th Cir., Dec. 14, 2016) (affirming summary judgement in favor of Doubltree on Ewings three ADA claims, because Doubletree had no knowledge of the disability and “[t]he ADA does not require clairvoyance”)
ERISA and Employee Pension Plans
*Amador v. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust (10th Cir., December 16, 2016) (affirming summary judgment against plaintiffs because the trust was neither arbitrary nor capricious in withholding benefits for failure to complete necessary IRS levy forms)
*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.