July 20, 2019

Archives for August 28, 2012

Tenth Circuit: No Pattern or Practice of Age Discrimination Proven by Employees

The Tenth Circuit published its opinion in Apsley vs. The Boeing Company on August 27, 2012.

This case arises from the Boeing Company’s (“Boeing”) 2005 sale, to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (“Spirit”), of facilities in Kansas and Oklahoma. On June 16, 2005, Boeing terminated the subject Division’s entire workforce of more than 10,000. The next day, Spirit rehired 8,354 employees. Although older employees predominated in the workforce both before and after the sale, a lower percentage of older workers than younger ones were rehired. The plaintiffs (the “Employees”), a group of older employees not rehired, sued.

The Employees sued Boeing, Onex, and Spirit (“the Companies”), alleging violations of federal law in seven counts.  In response to three motions filed by the Companies, the district court dismissed all of the Employees’ claims except their individual claims of disparate treatment under the ADEA. Although the Employees’ individual claims for disparate treatment remained unresolved, the district court granted the parties’ motions for certification for review by the Tenth Circuit.

Although the Employees had provided evidence that discrimination occurred during Boeing’s divestiture, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Employees had not proved a pattern or practice of age discrimination. And while older employees fared slightly worse than younger ones in the divestiture, the Employees are unable to show that the Companies’ hiring practices had a significant disparate impact on older workers. The Tenth Circuit also agreed with the district court that the Employees were unable to show that the Companies acted with the specific intent to interfere with their attainment of pension benefits. Finally, the Court saw no error in the district court’s dismissal of the Employees’ retaliation claims.  AFFIRMED.

Tenth Circuit: Dismissal of Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Affirmed Because Claims Were Not Yet Ripe

The Tenth Circuit published its opinion in Los Alamos Study Group v. US Department of Energy on August 27, 2012.

Plaintiff Los Alamos Study Group filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Defendants were the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the United States Department of Energy (DOE), and the DOE secretary. The complaint alleged that the design proposed for construction of a nuclear facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory had changed so much since the original environmental analysis that a new analysis was required and that all work on the facility should be halted until the conclusion of such analysis.

The district court dismissed the claims on two grounds: (1) that the case was not yet ripe because agency action (the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)) was ongoing when the complaint was filed; and (2) that the plaintiff’s claims were prudentially moot because Defendants refrained from all construction on the Nuclear Facility until the SEIS analysis was complete. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court on the ripeness issue, and therefore did not need to address mootness.



Tenth Circuit: Mandatory Minimum Sentence for Distribution of Child Pornography Affirmed; Remainder Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Ramos on August 27, 2012.

Mr. Ramos plead guilty to “knowingly and intentionally receiv[ing] . . . [child pornography]” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The Court sentenced Mr. Ramos to eighty-seven months in prison in accordance with § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B), sentencing Guidelines that mandated a 5-year mandatory minimum prison sentence.  Mr. Ramos appealed.

On appeal, Mr. Ramos raised two issues. First, he contended that there was an insufficient basis for the district court to conclude that he “distributed” child pornography under § 2G2.2(b). Second, he argued that the mandatory-minimum sentence applied to his case violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment.

The Tenth Circuit dismissed Mr. Ramos’ first argument as unpersuasive, holding that the district court properly ruled Mr. Ramos’ behavior constituted “distribution” of child pornography.  The Tenth Circuit dismissed the remainder of his appeal involving his constitutional challenges for lack of standing and therefore subject matter jurisdiction.



Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/27/12

On Monday, August 27, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and two unpublished opinions.

Williams vs. The National Football League

Nassious v. State of Colorado

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.