Discrimination ~ Retaliation
*Davis v. State of Utah (10th Cir., September 2, 2021) (affirming dismissal of plaintiffs’ employment-related claims against Utah and the University of Utah: plaintiffs’ First-Amendment allegations failed to overcome their qualified-immunity burden, and plaintiffs’ state-law claims were untimely)
*Guy v. McDonough (10th Cir., August 30, 2021) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Guy’s employer, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, on Guy’s race, sex, and age discrimination and retaliation claims: no genuine issue of material fact suggested that the reasons for Guy’s reassignment out of the cardiothoracic unit were pretextual)
ERISA and Employee Pension Plans
*Cruz v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (10th Cir., September 1, 2021) (affirming denial of long-term disability benefits: Cruz’s action under ERISA demanding a jury sounds in equity, however, not law, and does not fall within the ambit of the Seventh Amendment’s jury provision)
Public Employers/Employees
*Redd v. City of Oklahoma City (10th Cir., September 1, 2021) (affirming dismissal of Redd’s claims for excessive force, failure to train, failure to supervise, and negligence: Redd’s tort claims (against intentional acts) were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation; the defendant officer in the shooting had qualified immunity; finally, the officer did not violate the victim’s Fourth Amendment rights)
Workers Compensation ~ Occupational Safety and Disease
Farman-Rava v. Blu Auto Transport, LLC (Utah Ct. App., September 2, 2021) (reversing denial of Farman-Rava’s claim for attorney fees under his successful negligence claim: Blu Auto, his employer, failed to purchase workers compensation insurance; had it done so, this claim would be precluded, but since it did not, the statute clearly permits it)
*Sewell v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., August 31, 2021) (affirming denial of disability benefits: the ALJ did not implicitly find Sewell had unlimited capacity to stand or walk; even with his limitations, Sewell could still perform housekeeping and cafeteria duties)
*Cases marked with an asterisk are not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
