Cases — February 4th through 10th, 2018
Discrimination/Retaliation
*Gardenhire v. Manville (10th Circuit, February 7, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Manville on Gardenhire’s ADA claims (Manville made reasonable accommodations) and his FMLA claims for retaliation (lack of causation), interference (none with his FMLA rights), and Title VII racial discrimination (white employees were not similarly situated))
Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease
Spring Creek Coal Company v. McLean (10th Circuit, February 5, 2018)(affirming Department of Labor award of survivors’ benefits to Susan McLean under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq.)
*Perez v. Denver Fire Department (10th Circuit, February 7, 2018) (affirming ruling that supervisor did not disclose confidential information that Perez suffered from PTSD, information was inferred from voluntary disclosures by Perez outside medical examination)
*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.
*Gardenhire v. Manville (10th Circuit, February 7, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Manville on Gardenhire’s ADA claims (Manville made reasonable accommodations) and his FMLA claims for retaliation (lack of causation), interference (none with his FMLA rights), and Title VII racial discrimination (white employees were not similarly situated))
Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease
Spring Creek Coal Company v. McLean (10th Circuit, February 5, 2018)(affirming Department of Labor award of survivors’ benefits to Susan McLean under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq.)
*Perez v. Denver Fire Department (10th Circuit, February 7, 2018) (affirming ruling that supervisor did not disclose confidential information that Perez suffered from PTSD, information was inferred from voluntary disclosures by Perez outside medical examination)
*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.