Andrews v. Central Parking System, Inc. , 407 F. App'x 285 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                       FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    January 7, 2011
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    KATRINA ANDREWS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                   No. 10-1006
    (D.C. No. 1:08-CV-01467-CMA-CBS)
    CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM,                               (D. Colo.)
    INC., a Tennessee corporation;
    RICHARD LOCHER; PAMELA
    OSBORN,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
    After defendant Central Parking System, Inc. (CPS) terminated her
    employment as a supervisor at its facility at the Broadmoor Hotel, Katrina
    Andrews sued CPS and her supervisors, charging violations of Title VII of the
    *
    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 This order and judgment is not binding
    precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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.
    Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; of 
    42 U.S.C. § 1981
    ;
    and of state tort and contract law. The district court granted summary judgment
    to the defendants on all of her claims. We affirm.
    In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion and order, the district court
    determined that the defendants were entitled to judgment (1) on Ms. Andrews’
    claim for a hostile work environment, because she failed to demonstrate that the
    discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult she allegedly endured was
    sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and to
    create a hostile work environment; (2) on her discrimination claim based on
    unequal pay, because she had presented no evidence of direct discrimination and
    because she failed to make out a prima facie case of wage discrimination by
    showing she was paid less than similarly-situated non-African-American
    employees; (3) on her discrimination claim based on termination of her
    employment, because she failed to show that she was terminated under
    circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination; (4) on her retaliation
    claim, because she failed to show that the defendants’ legitimate,
    nondiscriminatory reasons for firing her were pretextual; (5) on her Colorado
    state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, because she failed
    to show that defendants’ conduct was outrageous; and (6) on her contractually-
    based claims, because she failed to show that she was not paid according to her
    contract with CPS or that CPS was unjustly enriched at her expense.
    -2-
    We review the district court’s entry of summary judgment de novo,
    applying the same standard as the district court. Oldenkamp v. United Am. Ins.
    Co., 
    619 F.3d 1243
    , 1246 (10th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is appropriate “if
    the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits
    show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is
    entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). On appeal,
    [w]e examine the record to determine whether any genuine issue of
    material fact was in dispute; if not, we determine whether the
    substantive law was applied correctly, and in so doing we examine
    the factual record and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light
    most favorable to the party opposing the motion.
    McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 
    149 F.3d 1125
    , 1128 (10th Cir. 1998)
    (brackets and quotations omitted).
    Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law in
    light of the above standards, we AFFIRM the district court’s entry of summary
    judgment in favor of the defendants, for substantially the reasons stated in
    its Opinion and Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment, dated
    December 11, 2009.
    Entered for the Court
    Timothy M. Tymkovich
    Circuit Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-1006

Citation Numbers: 407 F. App'x 285

Judges: Tymkovich, Baldock, Holmes

Filed Date: 1/7/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024