F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 28 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DAVID MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 99-4133
(D.C. No. 97-CV-549)
KENNECOTT COPPER (D. Utah)
CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , ANDERSON , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. 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.
Plaintiff-appellant David Matthews appeals from summary judgment
entered in favor of defendant-appellee Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation on
his discrimination claim brought pursuant to Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-17 (ADA) and on his state law claims for
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision. Our
jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Appellant’s claims arose from his belief that he was transferred, demoted,
denied jobs, and terminated because he suffered from a learning disability.
During the discovery period, appellant stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of
his claim for retaliation under the ADA and of his state law claims for defamation
and wrongful discharge. See Appellee’s Supp. App. at 27-28. Thereafter,
appellee moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. After a hearing
on the motion, appellant stipulated to dismissal of his state law claims for breach
of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision. See id. at 174.
Despite the stipulation, the district court also analyzed those claims on their
merits in the memorandum opinion and order and granted summary judgment
on them.
-2-
The district court granted summary judgment on appellant’s discrimination
claim because he failed to timely file his claims with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as required by § 12117(a) of the ADA and
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. See id. at 183-84. Construing his arguments on appeal
broadly, appellant seems to argue that his failure to properly file his EEOC claims
should be equitably tolled because: (1) his learning disability precluded him from
knowing the proper way to proceed; and (2) he received “wrong advice” from
counsel. A review of the record shows that appellant never raised these two
arguments to the district court and the court therefore did not consider them
when granting summary judgment. We will not consider these arguments now.
See Smith v. Rogers Galvanizing Co. , 128 F.3d 1380, 1386 (10th Cir. 1997)
(stating that this court considers matters not raised or argued in the trial court
only in the “most unusual circumstances,” such as in questions regarding
jurisdiction or sovereign immunity or where public interest is implicated or
manifest injustice would result) (quotation omitted).
In his third issue on appeal, appellant argues that his claim for wrongful
discharge should go to trial because appellee wrongfully terminated him for
absences occurring while he was on leave under the Family and Medical Leave
-3-
Act. 1 Because appellant had previously stipulated to dismissal of his wrongful
discharge claim, and the district court had earlier dismissed that claim with
prejudice, the district court did not address the wrongful discharge claim other
than noting that it had previously been dismissed. See Appellee’s Supp. App.
at 175. Having stipulated in district court to the dismissal of his wrongful
discharge claim, appellant is now precluded from challenging the dismissal of
that claim. See Smith , 128 F.3d at 1386.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah
is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
1
We note that plaintiff’s claim for wrongful discharge was based on his
assertion that he was terminated “solely as a consequence of reporting the
discrimination to which he has been subjected” and did not allege violation of the
Family Medical Leave Act. Appellee’s Supp. App. at 9.
-4-