Cases — November 5th through 11th (2017)
Contract/Noncompete/Trade Secret/Wrongful Termination
*Utter v. Amie Rose Colclazier (10th Cir., November 6, 2017) (affirming dismissal of implied employment contract and FMLA retaliation claims, but reversing dismissal of breach of contract and First Amendment claims)
*Rael v. Smith’s Food and Drug Centers, Inc. (10th Cir., November 7, 2017) (affirming dismissal of Rael’s state law harassment and emotional distress claims as preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act)
Discrimination/Retaliation
*Mitchell v. Kansas City, Kansas, School District (10th Cir., November 7, 2017) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the School District: Mitchell fails to argue plain error on his discrimination claim or pretext on his retaliation claim)
Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago (U.S., November 8, 2017) (vacating and remanding a Seventh Circuit employment discrimination decision holding jurisdictional the time limits on extensions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C): time extensions are mandatory and jurisdictional if set by statute, but the rule 4(a) limitation, which is nonstatutory, is not jurisdictional)
*Utter v. Amie Rose Colclazier (10th Cir., November 6, 2017) (affirming dismissal of implied employment contract and FMLA retaliation claims, but reversing dismissal of breach of contract and First Amendment claims)*Rael v. Smith’s Food and Drug Centers, Inc. (10th Cir., November 7, 2017) (affirming dismissal of Rael’s state law harassment and emotional distress claims as preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act)
Discrimination/Retaliation
*Mitchell v. Kansas City, Kansas, School District (10th Cir., November 7, 2017) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the School District: Mitchell fails to argue plain error on his discrimination claim or pretext on his retaliation claim)
Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago (U.S., November 8, 2017) (vacating and remanding a Seventh Circuit employment discrimination decision holding jurisdictional the time limits on extensions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C): time extensions are mandatory and jurisdictional if set by statute, but the rule 4(a) limitation, which is nonstatutory, is not jurisdictional)
*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.