Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Walkingstick Dixon v. Oklahoma
Marci Walkingstick Dixon worked at Northeastern State University, where Richard Reif was her supervisor. After NSU fired her, she sued NSU for Title VII sex and race discrimination and Title VII retaliation. She also sued Reif for retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The district court granted NSU and Reif summary judgment on these claims.
Walkingstick challenged the grant of summary judgment on her claims for Title VII sex and race discrimination, Title VII retaliation and FMLA retaliation.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the magistrate judge erred by faulting Walkingstick for using the McDonnell Douglas elements to establish her prima facie case in concluding that she had failed to raise an inference of discrimination. The court found that a plaintiff who satisfies the McDonnell Douglas elements raises an inference of discrimination, and Walkingstick met this standard.
The court found that, as a Native American woman, Walkingstick is a member of two protected classes. It also found that she was qualified for her job, she suffered an adverse employment action because she was fired and NSU didn’t eliminate her job after discharge—it replaced her.
Walkingstick also argued she presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding pretext, and the 10th Circuit agreed. In sum, the 10th Circuit found that Walkingstick presented sufficient evidence for a prima facie case of sex and race discrimination and to show that NSU’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual.
The 10th Circuit also found that Walkingstick presented evidence on a prima facie case of Title VII retaliation and pretext sufficient to overcome NSU’s summary judgment motion.
The 10th Circuit reversed the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment on Walkingstick’s Title VII sex and race discrimination claim and her Title VII retaliation claim. It affirmed summary judgment in favor of Reif on her FMLA retaliation claim.
Montufar-Caballero, et al. v. Garland
Ludin Rosario Montufar-Caballero and her minor daughter sought review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reopen.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the BIA abused its discretion by inexplicably departing from the policy established in the BIA case Matter of Lozada and imposing an additional requirement for a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel that doesn’t appear within Lozada or any case interpreting it.
Although the BIA has consistently required the filing of a bar complaint to comply with the third Lozada requirement, it has not established what evidence, if any, must be provided to satisfy this requirement.he Lozada decision itself simply states that the motion to reopen “should reflect whether a complaint has been filed,” according to the opinion.
The 10th Circuit granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA’s order and remanded to the BIA for further proceedings.
Wendy Johnson pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter for causing the death of Stephanie Heneha-Roubidoux in a drunk-driving accident. The government sought criminal restitution for Stephanie Heneha-Roubidoux’s lost income, relying on testimony from its expert and from her wife, Kristi Heneha-Roubidoux.
Johnson argued for lost-income restitution of zero because, according to the government’s expert, Stephanie Heneha-Roubidoux would have personally consumed all her income. The district court declined to deduct personal consumption from the restitution award.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the district court rejected the personal consumption deduction for a legally incorrect reason.
The 10th Circuit found that the district court impliedly held that it couldn’t apply the personal consumption deduction without also considering Stephanie Heneha-Roubidoux’s household contributions. This was the argument the government made when it urged the district court to reject the personal consumption deduction.
But the 10th Circuit found that this was a faulty premise because household contributions don’t fall within “lost income” under the Victim and Witness Protection Act. The 10th Circuit concluded the district court erred when it rejected the personal consumption deduction on the grounds that the deduction was not accompanied by a consideration of household contributions, as household contributions can’t be part of the lost-income calculation under the VWPA.
While it rejected Johnson’s other challenge to the restitution award, the 10th Circuit remanded for the district court to reconsider the personal consumption deduction. On remand, the district court should also reconsider the payment schedule.