Cases—May 27th through June 2nd, 2018
Discrimination/Retaliation
*Harrington v. Ozark Waffle, LLC (10th Cir., May 29, 2018) (affirming dismissal: Harrington did not show any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s dismissal of his employment discrimination claim)
*Rolland v. Carnation Building Services, Inc. (10th Cir., May 30, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Carnation: its reasons for terminating Rolland were consistent, and Rolland did not show pretext)
*Bailey v. American Phoenix, Inc. (10th Cir., May 31, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of American Phoenix: Bailey failed to show pretext)
*McDonald v. City of Wichita (10th Cir., June 1, 2018) (affirming judgment in favor of Wichita on McDonald’s retaliation claim: the jury was properly instructed on the legal standard for retaliation)
Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease
*Carr v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., May 29, 2018) (reversing in part denial of disability benefits for a proper evaluation: the ALJ failed to accurately describe Carr’smental limitations in hypothetical questions)
*Cases marked with an asterisk are 10th Circuit cases the court declared not to be 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.
*Harrington v. Ozark Waffle, LLC (10th Cir., May 29, 2018) (affirming dismissal: Harrington did not show any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s dismissal of his employment discrimination claim)
*Rolland v. Carnation Building Services, Inc. (10th Cir., May 30, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Carnation: its reasons for terminating Rolland were consistent, and Rolland did not show pretext)
*Bailey v. American Phoenix, Inc. (10th Cir., May 31, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of American Phoenix: Bailey failed to show pretext)
*McDonald v. City of Wichita (10th Cir., June 1, 2018) (affirming judgment in favor of Wichita on McDonald’s retaliation claim: the jury was properly instructed on the legal standard for retaliation)
Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease
*Carr v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., May 29, 2018) (reversing in part denial of disability benefits for a proper evaluation: the ALJ failed to accurately describe Carr’smental limitations in hypothetical questions)
*Cases marked with an asterisk are 10th Circuit cases the court declared not to be 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.