UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 5/22/96
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
SHARON STEPHENS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 95-6154
(D.C. No. CIV-94-765-T)
MARVIN T. RUNYON, Postmaster (W.D. Okla.)
General,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before PORFILIO, JONES,** and TACHA, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law
of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation
of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms
and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted
without oral argument.
Plaintiff Sharon Stephens is a Postal Service employee. Based on the conduct of
another Postal Service employee, Vic Clark, plaintiff asserted claims against defendant
Postmaster General for sexual discrimination based on hostile work environment, and for age
discrimination. The district court granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment
on plaintiff’s sexual discrimination claim on February 24, 1995, and later dismissed
plaintiff’s age discrimination claim. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s grant of partial
summary judgment in favor of defendant on her sexual discrimination claim. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The district court held that plaintiff’s only timely Equal Employment Opportunity
complaint related to an incident with Clark on January 5, 1993, but that plaintiff did not
allege sexual harassment in that encounter. The district court also held that previous
incidents of alleged sexual harassment by Clark were too infrequent and distant in time to
form a continuing pattern of sexual discrimination. The district court therefore concluded
that plaintiff’s claim of sexual discrimination based on hostile work environment could not
survive summary judgment.
Plaintiff argues on appeal that the district court erred by holding: (1) that she could
not prevail as a matter of law on her claim of sexual harassment based on hostile work
2
environment, and (2) that her claim of prior sexual harassment was not timely under the
continuing violation doctrine.
The district court carefully and thoroughly analyzed the issues in light of the record.
We have also carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. We affirm for
substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the district court’s February 24, 1995
order.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
3