Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. United Steel Paper
In 2021, HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining LLC transitioned a petroleum refinery into a renewable diesel production facility. As part of that transition, HollyFrontier reassigned work from hourly workers to salaried employees with higher levels of education and technical expertise.
A Pennsylvania labor organization—United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union Local 11-574—filed a grievance against HollyFrontier, alleging that its reassignment of work violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.
After an arbitrator resolved that issue in HollyFrontier’s favor, he concluded separately that the salaried employees must be included in the bargaining unit—an issue that neither party submitted for arbitration. HollyFrontier petitioned to vacate the arbitrator’s decision, arguing that he had no authority to order the parties to include salaried employees in the bargaining unit because the parties did not submit that issue for arbitration. The district court granted HollyFrontier’s petition.
The union appealed the district court’s vacatur, claiming the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority when he determined that the salaried employees must be included in the bargaining unit. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.
Based on the plain language of the parties’ briefs during arbitration, the parties limited the arbitrator’s authority to resolution of only one issue: whether HollyFrontier’s reassignment of work from hourly workers to salaried employees violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.
Because the arbitrator exceeded the bounds of his authority by resolving a question not submitted for arbitration, the 10th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to vacate the arbitration award.
Culp v. Remington of Montrose Golf Club
Remington of Montrose LLC operates a golf club and casual dining restaurant in Montrose, Colorado. Stacie Culp and Stephanie Peters, both servers at Remington’s restaurant, were allegedly harassed by bartender Jason DeSalvo while all three were employed there.
The plaintiffs brought several claims against Remington under both state and federal law. The claims at issue on appeal are for damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act for sexual harassment and retaliation.
The district court granted Remington summary judgment on Peters’ retaliation claim, leaving the other claims for trial. At trial the jury rejected Peters’ remaining claims and returned puzzling special verdicts on Culp’s claims, finding that Remington did not violate her rights under Title VII but nonetheless awarding her punitive damages on a Title VII claim.
The plaintiffs raised several issues on appeal. First, Peters argues that the district court should not have granted summary judgment on her retaliation claim. The 10th Circuit affirmed the district court on that issue.
Second, Culp argued that her Title VII and CADA claims should be retried because of the inconsistent special verdicts. The 10th Circuit agreed and opined on whether, in light of U.S. Supreme Court precedent that supersedes an earlier precedent of this court, district courts have authority to resubmit special verdicts to the jury.
The supervening authority relevant in this case, according to the opinion, is Dietz v. Bouldin. That case held that a district court “has the inherent power to rescind a jury discharge order and recall a jury for further deliberations after identifying an error in the jury’s verdict.”
The 10th Circuit found that if the district court has concerns about the inconsistency of a jury’s verdicts, it may ask the jury to reconsider. It need not struggle to determine whether there is some way to reconcile apparently inconsistent verdicts. Moreover, if a party does not point out the problems with the verdict to the court and request jury reconsideration, it forfeits the issue on appeal, according to the opinion. The 10th Circuit would reverse the district court only if the complaining party establishes that there was a clear error that prejudiced it.
Third, plaintiffs appealed the district court’s ruling on the admissibility of three pieces of evidence, but these evidentiary challengers were not preserved in district court.