Summaries of Selected Opinions, 0317 COBJ, Vol. 46 No. 3 Pg. 119
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Summaries of selected Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions appear on a space-available basis. The summaries are prepared for the Colorado Bar Association (CBA) by Katherine Campbell and Frank Gibbard, licensed Colorado attorneys. They are provided as a service by the CBA and are not the official language of this Court. The CBA cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the summaries. Full copies of the Tenth Circuit decisions are accessible from the CBA website: ww.cobar.org (click on “Opinions/Rules/Statutes”).
No. 15-8112. Hansen v. Sky West Airlines. 12/21/2016. D.Wyo. Judge McKay. Sex Discrimination-Hostile Work Environment-Disparate Treatment-Retaliation-Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress-Time Frame for Actionable Conduct-Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff Hansen is a gay man who worked for SkyWest Airlines. He alleged that he was sexually harassed by supervisors and coworkers from 2003 through 2011, when he was fired. Hansen received a right-to-sue notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sued SkyWest Airlines under Title VII for, as relevant to this appeal, sex-based hostile work environment, disparate treatment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer on all counts.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviewed the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, chronicling the harassment Hansen alleged he suffered during his employment. On the hostile work environment claim, the Tenth Circuit determined that the district court did not properly evaluate whether sexual harassment that went on more than 300 days before Hansen’s filing was related to acts that occurred during the 300-day limitations period.
As to the retaliation claim, in reasoning that any protected opposition to sex-based discrimination was too remote in time, the district court overlooked more recent evidence where Hansen reported sexual harassment. The district court erred in not considering whether a jury could find that his termination in 2011 was causally linked to reports made around that time.
On the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the Tenth Circuit determined that a jury could find that the relevant factors to prove the claim are present in this case. The district court erred in dismissing this claim.
Hansen did not contest summary judgment on the disparate treatment clam The grant of summary judgment on the disparate treatment claim was affirmed. The grant of summary judgment was reversed on the claims of sexual harassment, retaliation, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial