Cases — December 4th through 10th
Discrimination/Retaliation
*Stapp v. Curry County Board of Commissioners (10th Cir., December 6, 2016) (affirming summary judgement for Curry County on Stapp’s Age Discrimination claims: constructive discharge, hostile work environment, and retaliation)
*Dye v. Moniz (10th Cir., December 6, 2016) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Moniz on Dye’s disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims because the undisputed evidence showed that Dye chose to retire)
Labor Unions
*United States v. Grigsby (10th Cir., December 7, 2016) (affirming district court order that Grigsby’s union retirement account be liquidated to satisfy the restitution judgement against him)
Miscellaneous
*McCune v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (10th Cir., December 6, 2016) (affirming the SEC’s disciplinary suspension of McCune (resulting in his being ‘permitted to resign’ from his employment) because he failed to ‘observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade’)
*Stapp v. Curry County Board of Commissioners (10th Cir., December 6, 2016) (affirming summary judgement for Curry County on Stapp’s Age Discrimination claims: constructive discharge, hostile work environment, and retaliation)
*Dye v. Moniz (10th Cir., December 6, 2016) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Moniz on Dye’s disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims because the undisputed evidence showed that Dye chose to retire)
Labor Unions
*United States v. Grigsby (10th Cir., December 7, 2016) (affirming district court order that Grigsby’s union retirement account be liquidated to satisfy the restitution judgement against him)
Miscellaneous
*McCune v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (10th Cir., December 6, 2016) (affirming the SEC’s disciplinary suspension of McCune (resulting in his being ‘permitted to resign’ from his employment) because he failed to ‘observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade’)
*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.