Free Trial / Sign Up Products / Prices / Samples About Us / Contact FAQs Home
Latest employment law cases 
Summaries and links to full text
LawMemo - First in Employment Law Emailed directly to you
and online all the time
Latest Cases Advanced Search Law Firm Directory Arbitrator Directory Law School Directory Legal Resources / Memos
Employment Law Memo
Arbitration Law Memo
NLRB Law Memo
Employment Low Blog
Arbitration Law Blog
Employment Law 101
Articles
Supreme Court Cases
EEOC Info
NLRB Info

LawMemo Employment Law Blog 
All Archives    |    All Archives By Topic 
Also read LawMemo Arbitration Blog


« ERISA, bigamy, and choice of laws | Main | EEOC v. Alamo - Can't fire Muslim for wearing scarf »

Herrera today, gone tomorrow
June 02, 2006 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

Strange. The 10th Circuit filed an opinion on Tuesday and withdrew it on Wednesday.

The order:

The opinion entered in this matter on May 30, 2006, is withdrawn. The appeal shall be restored to pending status.

The case: Herrera v. Lufkin Industries (10th Cir 05/30/2006, 05/31/2006).

Findlaw has dutifully scrubbed the original opinion off its web site. We've captured the original 05/30/2006 opinion.

I thought the case was pretty ordinary. Some racist comments which the court thought were not pervasive or serious enough to create a legally actionable offensive work environment.

Employment Law Memo provided this summary:

Herrera sued the employer, asserting claims for (among other things) hostile environment race-based harassment under Title VII, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on the first two claims, and judgment as a matter of law in favor of the employer on the third. The 10th Circuit affirmed, concluding that 1) the alleged conduct was not sufficiently "severe or pervasive" to constitute actionable harassment under Title VII; 2) Herrera's employee handbook didn't constitute a contract, and Herrera wasn't constructively discharged even if there had been a contract; and 3) the conduct underlying Herrera's IIED claim was not sufficiently extreme and outrageous to support that claim.

LawMemo.Com


EEOC | NLRB | Supreme CourtEmployment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101

 
Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. It does not include the Caselaw Database.