F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 30 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MARY FRANCES DURAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 01-2154
(D.C. No. CIV-97-1598-BB/RLP)
NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT (D. N.M.)
OF LABOR,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY , McKAY , and BALDOCK , 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 Mary Frances Duran, an Hispanic woman, began working for
defendant New Mexico Department of Labor in 1975 at the age of 42. She
voluntarily retired in 1999 at the age of 65. During her employment, plaintiff
sought and was rejected for several different promotions. She also objected to
certain disciplinary actions taken against her and to several of her annual
performance evaluations. She filed several charges of discrimination and
retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). She
then filed this suit, alleging claims of race and sex discrimination 1
and retaliation
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff
appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Plaintiff argues on appeal that: (1) there was a causal connection between
her EEOC complaints and defendant’s actions in refusing to promote her;
(2) there was a causal connection between her EEOC complaints and defendant’s
actions in denying her privileges and in disciplining her; (3) there was a causal
connection between her EEOC complaints and defendant’s allegedly unfair and
false evaluations of her job performance; (4) defendant’s denial of privileges to
1
An additional claim of age discrimination was dismissed after the Supreme
Court decided that a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act may
not be maintained against a State without that State’s consent. See Kimel v.
Florida Bd. of Regents , 528 U.S. 62 (2000).
-2-
her and disciplinary actions against her constituted adverse employment actions
sufficient to give rise to Title VII claims; (5) defendant’s allegedly unfair and
false evaluations of her job performance constituted adverse employment actions
sufficient to give rise to Title VII claims; (6) defendant’s justifications for its
recurring refusals to promote her were pretexts for discrimination; (7) defendant’s
denial of privileges to her and disciplinary actions against her constituted
disparate treatment giving rise to an inference of discrimination; and
(8) defendant’s allegedly unfair and false evaluations of her job performance
constituted disparate treatment giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Adler v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. , 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is
appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
a judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(c). We view the facts and the reasonable
inferences to be drawn from them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party. Adler , 144 F.3d at 670. “An issue of fact is ‘material’ if under the
substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim.” Id.
-3-
We have carefully reviewed the district court’s decision in light of the
parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. We are unpersuaded by plaintiff’s claims
of error. Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in
the district court’s thorough April 19, 2001 memorandum opinion, the judgment
is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-