Hogan v. Colgate Palmolive Co.

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 7 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
THEODORE HOGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 00-3360
v. (D.C. No. 99-CV-2423-JWL)
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (D. Kan.)
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit
Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore submitted without
oral argument.
Plaintiff-Appellant Theodore Hogan appeals the district court’s summary
judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 retaliation claim. Appellant claimed
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
that Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company interfered with Appellant’s
settlement of a claim against Defendant’s long-term disability insurance provider
in retaliation for his filing of an EEOC charge against Defendant. Nearly three
years after Appellant filed his charge, two of Defendant’s employees urged the
insurance provider to let the insurance claim lie dormant in light of Appellant’s
extended inaction on the claim. Appellant alleged that this communication
eventually caused the insurance provider to refuse settlement with Appellant. On
Defendant’s motion, the district court dismissed the action in its entirety.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying
the same legal standard used by the district court under Rule 56(c). See NLRB v.
Pueblo of San Juan, 228 F.3d 1195, 1198 (10th Cir. 2000). We have studied the
briefs of the parties, the record on appeal, and the applicable law, and affirm for
substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its Memorandum and Order
of October 4, 2000.
Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-2-