Low v. Chu , 450 F. App'x 700 ( 2011 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 23, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
DARLENE W. LOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 10-5165
(D.C. No. 4:09-CV-00398-CVE-PJC)
STEVEN CHU, the Honorable (N.D. Okla.)
Secretary of the Department of Energy
in his official capacity as an officer of
the United States,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, EBEL and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Darlene W. Low, an employee of the Southwestern
Power Administration, a division within the United States Department of Energy,
filed a complaint against Steven Chu, Secretary of the Department, asserting a
total of five claims: three retaliation claims and one hostile work environment
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
claim, all pursuant to Title VII, and one claim brought under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act. The district court dealt with the merits of
Low’s case in three separate orders. In the first order, the court granted
defendant’s motion to dismiss certain claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that any claims arising from actions in
2000 were unexhausted because Low had failed to timely contact an EEO
counselor about them. The first order further notified the parties that defendant’s
motion to dismiss would be converted to a motion for partial summary judgment
and ordered additional briefing. The court’s second order held that, except for the
hostile work environment claim, the balance of Low’s claims were also
unexhausted thus entitling defendant to summary judgment on those claims as
well.
Low then filed a motion to amend her complaint to add two additional
retaliation claims based on meetings held in August 2008. The court denied the
motion, because “[t]hese meetings are merely examples of the already pleaded
[and still pending] hostile work environment and/or retaliation [claim,]” and that
therefore additional amendment to the complaint was unnecessary. Aplt. App. at
358. The parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment. 1
1
In addition to the claims in the complaint underlying this appeal, Low also
had pending in district court a case whose sole claim was that she “was
intentionally discriminated against because of her sex and/or retaliation for a
discrete employment action.” Aplt. App. at 899 n.1. Before ruling on the cross
(continued...)
-2-
At issue on the cross motions for summary judgment were two remaining
claims: one for hostile work environment based on gender, and a second claim of
discrimination based on gender or retaliation. Holding that Low’s facts, when
taken in the light most favorable to her, did not show conditions sufficiently
pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment, the district court further held
that no reasonable jury could infer discrimination based on gender. Because there
was no issue of fact regarding the existence of gender discrimination in the
workplace, let alone that discrimination was responsible for the actions taken
against Low, defendant was entitled to summary judgment.
With regard to her discrimination based on gender and/or retaliation claim,
the court determined that Low had failed to make a prima facie case of either
gender discrimination or retaliation, and that defendant was entitled to summary
judgment on that claim as well.
Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The parties are familiar
with the facts and procedural history of this case, and we need not restate either
here. See Low v. Chu, No. 09-CV-0398-CVE-PJC, 2010 WL 4736294(N.D. Okla. Nov. 16, 2010). On appeal, Low argues that (1) her claims were
exhausted because she contacted an EEO counselor within the allowed time;
(2) the court erred in granting summary judgment on the gender-based hostile
1
(...continued)
motions for summary judgment, the court consolidated the two actions.
-3-
work environment claim, and (3) the court erroneously refused to allow her to
amend her complaint.
We conduct a de novo review of a district court’s dismissal for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Trackwell v. United States
Government, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007). “We review the district
court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standard
used by the district court. . . . When applying this standard, we view the evidence
and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.” Garrison v. Gambro, Inc., 428 F.3d 933, 935 (10th Cir. 2005)
(quotation omitted).
We have undertaken a thorough review of the parties’ briefs, the record,
and the applicable law and conclude that Low has not shown any reversible error
in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court for
substantially the same reasons stated in its order granting defendant’s
Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss certain claims for lack of jurisdiction, its orders
granting summary judgment to defendant on Low’s remaining claims, and its
order refusing to allow further amendment of the complaint.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-4-