United States Tenth Circuit

In an action raising Title VII claims of sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment against plaintiffs' employer, a state agency, summary judgment for employer is affirmed where: 1) most of the acts of alleged sexual harassment or hostile work environment set forth in the complaint occurred were time-barred; 2) to the extent any of the acts charged occurred during the 300-day period preceding the charge, sometimes referred to as the filing period, they were not sufficient by themselves to constitute hostile work environment claims; and 3) those acts did not have a sufficient "relationship" to the acts alleged which occurred outside the 300-day period so as to be part of the "same hostile work environment" under applicable precedent.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/18/2007
• Published 04/19/2007

Judges

• FIGA, District Judge., Before TYMKOVICH, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and FIGA, District Judge.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• D. Bruce Oliver, Attorney at Law, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees Holmes, Giacoletto and Jackson., John L. Black, Jr., Attorney at Law, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Stephens., Reha Deal, Assistant Utah Attorney General, Utah Attorney General's Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.