Dorota Peterson sued Staples the Office Superstore, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, raising claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), along with state law claims for defamation, libel, and slander. The district court dismissed some claims and granted summary judgment to Staples on the remaining claims, leading Peterson to appeal to the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Peterson worked at Staples for approximately two years before a male employee complained to management that she was sexually harassing him. After investigating, Staples found the allegations substantiated and terminated Peterson’s employment under its zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy. Peterson filed a pro se lawsuit against Staples, challenging her termination. The district court initially dismissed her state law claims and two Title VII claims for discrimination and retaliation based on sex. After discovery, the court granted summary judgment to Staples on Peterson’s remaining claims under the ADEA and Title VII for hostile work environment, retaliation, and discrimination based on national origin.
Legal Analysis
Summary Judgment Appeal: The court found Peterson waived appellate review of the summary judgment ruling by failing to support her arguments with citations to the record or legal authority. While Peterson claimed there were factual errors in Staples’s summary judgment motion, she provided no record citations to support these assertions.
Discovery and Costs Issues: The court addressed three additional issues Peterson raised regarding discovery and costs. First, Peterson challenged the denial of her motion to deem facts admitted when Staples initially failed to respond to all her requests for admissions. Second, she contested the denial of her motion to compel discovery. Third, she challenged the award of costs to Staples as the prevailing party. The court found Peterson waived appellate review of these issues by failing to adequately brief how the district court abused its discretion, relying instead on conclusory assertions without citations to the record or legal authority.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in its entirety, noting it would have reached the same result even without the procedural waiver based on the district court’s thorough 42-page decision.
Schrag on Law 