Archives for August 2010
As reported by SCOTUSblog, Wal-Mart has petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s 6-5 determination that upwards of 1.5 million women who have worked for Wal-Mart over the past decade may bring a class action against the corporation for discrimination based on sex, calling it “one of the most important class-action decisions since the modern Rule 23 [governing such claims] was adopted in 1966.”
The Ninth Circuit’s order stated that “the lawsuit will embrace the claims of ‘all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any time since December 26, 1998, who have been or may be subjected to Wal-Mart’s challenge pay and management track promotions policies and practices.'”
Wal-Mart contends that the class is the largest in history and may violate due process, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the Constitution.
See SCOTUSblog for more information about the class action.
(image source: United States Supreme Court)
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and 42 unpublished opinions for the week of August 22, 2010.
Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. Case announcements are available here.
The Tenth Circuit on Monday issued one published opinion and one unpublished opinion.
In Flood v. ClearOne Communications, Inc., the Court vacated the district court’s decision. The former CEO of ClearOne claimed she was contractually entitled to an advancement of attorney’s fees from the corporation for her criminal trial, for which the district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the corporation to provide the advancement. However, the court misread the parties’ obligations under the contract and disregarded express conditions to such an advancement that were specified in the agreement.
There are no new cases to report.
The Tenth Circuit on Friday issued no published opinions and no unpublished opinions.
The Tenth Circuit on Thursday issued no published opinions and no unpublished opinions.
Ever since Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey announced her retirement, there has been no shortage of speculation about who might take her seat on the court.
But after interviewing 31 possible candidates in two days, the Supreme Court Nominating Commission has offered up three candidates to Governor Ritter. Ritter now has two weeks to make an appointment. The individual selected will be up for a retention election in two years.
Who are the final three?
Monica Marquez, Deputy Colorado Attorney General
David Prince, Fourth Judicial District Judge
Robert Russel, Colorado Court of Appeals Judge
The Denver Post has more information about the three candidates and their backgrounds.
The Tenth Circuit on Monday issued three published opinions and five unpublished opinions.
In Deutsch v. Jordan, the Court affirmed in part and granted in part the district court’s denial of summary judgment to Petitioner. Respondent brought civil rights and state law claims against Petitioner after being fired as police chief, alleging his termination was in retaliation to his testimony during a defamation lawsuit brought against a private citizen. The Court affirmed the district court by finding that Respondent’s testimony was on a matter of public concern, and therefore protected. However, the Court granted the motion in part as the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the determination that Petitioner fired Respondent “because she believed he had lied during his defamation-suit testimony.”
In Jones v. Oklahoma City Public Schools, the Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Respondent. Petitioner brought an age discrimination claim against Respondent for her termination. While the district court found Petitioner had established sufficient evidence for a prima facie case of discrimination and evidence to show Respondent’s proffered reasons were pretextual, the court granted summary judgment by finding that no reasonable juror could find for Petitioner. However, the Court found that the district court applied the improper “pretext plus” analysis in its review. The Supreme Court, along with the Tenth Circuit, has “rejected the so-called ‘pretext plus’ standard that required plaintiffs using the McDonnell Douglas framework to both show pretext and produce ‘additional evidence of discrimination’ in order to avoid summary judgment;” therefore, “‘once a plaintiff presents evidence sufficient to create a genuine factual dispute regarding the veracity of a defendant’s nondiscriminatory reason, we presume the jury could infer that the employer acted for a discriminatory reason and must deny summary judgment.'”
In State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Fisher, the Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgement for Respondents. Petitioner claimed she was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits from Respondents, however the district court was correct in denying her claim. The vehicle in question was not the cause of Petitioner’s son’s death; rather, the vehicle was used as a means of transportation to the point at which the occupant vacated the vehicle and assaulted Petitioner’s son. This “use” of the vehicle is insufficient to grant uninsured motorist benefits.
There are no new cases to report.