Cases — November 13th through 19th
Contract/Noncompete/Trade Secret/Wrongful Termination
Acha v. Dept. of Agriculture (10th Cir., November 14, 2016) (vacating MeritSystems Protection Board decision: the MSPB lacked jurisdiction to consider whether Acha had been terminated for disclosure of Federal Acquisition Regulation violation)
Discrimination/Retaliation
*Palzer v. Cox Oklahoma Telecom, LLC (10th Cir., November 18, 2016) (reversing dismissal of Palzer’s suit for failure of timely service, instead of giving him opportunity to effect service under federal law)
*Lister v. City of Wichita (10th Cir., 2016, November 15, 2016) (affirming dismissal of discrimination claim (harassment) as time barred (85 days after the statutory filing deadline))
Miscellaneous
Mojsilovic v. Board of Regents, University of Oklahoma (10th Cir., November 17, 2016) (affirming dismissal of claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The Mojsilovics claimed that an agent of the University of Oklahoma forced them to work by threatening their immigration status. The district court, however, concluded the university was entitled to sovereign immunity)
Acha v. Dept. of Agriculture (10th Cir., November 14, 2016) (vacating MeritSystems Protection Board decision: the MSPB lacked jurisdiction to consider whether Acha had been terminated for disclosure of Federal Acquisition Regulation violation)
Discrimination/Retaliation
*Palzer v. Cox Oklahoma Telecom, LLC (10th Cir., November 18, 2016) (reversing dismissal of Palzer’s suit for failure of timely service, instead of giving him opportunity to effect service under federal law)
*Lister v. City of Wichita (10th Cir., 2016, November 15, 2016) (affirming dismissal of discrimination claim (harassment) as time barred (85 days after the statutory filing deadline))
Miscellaneous
Mojsilovic v. Board of Regents, University of Oklahoma (10th Cir., November 17, 2016) (affirming dismissal of claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The Mojsilovics claimed that an agent of the University of Oklahoma forced them to work by threatening their immigration status. The district court, however, concluded the university was entitled to sovereign immunity)
*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.