Cases — April 3rd through 9th
Contract/Noncompete/Trade Secret/Wrongful Termination
Hollenbach v. Salt Lake City Corporation (Utah, April 7, 2016) (reversing Civil Service Commission determination that it lacked jurisdiction over Hollenbach’s termination appeal because filing applies upon mail cancellation)
Discrimination/Retaliation
*Tuffa v. Flight Services & Systems, Inc. (10th Cir., April 5, 2016) (affirming exclusion of EEOC letter as to possible discrimination in the termination of 22 African employees, based on likelihood of juror confusion)
Miscellaneous
Crane-Jenkins v. Mikarose, LLC (Utah, April 7, 2016) (reversing award of attorneys fees under federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC Chap. 8)
Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease
Bade-Brown v. Labor Commission (Utah, April 7, 2016) (upholding Commission order denying hearing because of based on glaring deficiency and potential bias)
Hollenbach v. Salt Lake City Corporation (Utah, April 7, 2016) (reversing Civil Service Commission determination that it lacked jurisdiction over Hollenbach’s termination appeal because filing applies upon mail cancellation)
Discrimination/Retaliation
*Tuffa v. Flight Services & Systems, Inc. (10th Cir., April 5, 2016) (affirming exclusion of EEOC letter as to possible discrimination in the termination of 22 African employees, based on likelihood of juror confusion)
Miscellaneous
Crane-Jenkins v. Mikarose, LLC (Utah, April 7, 2016) (reversing award of attorneys fees under federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC Chap. 8)
Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease
Bade-Brown v. Labor Commission (Utah, April 7, 2016) (upholding Commission order denying hearing because of based on glaring deficiency and potential bias)
Bell v. Colvin (10th Cir., April 7, 2016) (affirming denial of disability benefits because ALJ credibility determinations are entitled to special deference)
*Ringgold v. Colvin (10th Cir., April 4, 2016) (reversing judgment in favor of Commissioner because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate consulting psychologist’s opinion)
*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.