United States Tenth Circuit

In an action claiming that defendants retaliated against plaintiff-former Albuquerque assistant city attorney in violation of Title VII and state law, rulings for plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff was an employee as defined by Title VII, as the immediate adviser exemption was inapplicable; 2) her participation as a defense attorney in an EEOC mediation constituted protected activity within the meaning of Title VII and state law; 3) the city forfeited its challenge regarding a causal connection between her participation in the EEOC proceedings and her termination; and 4) there was no error in instructing the jury or in denying summary judgment. However, summary judgment for the city on a class-of-one Equal Protection claim is affirmed as the class-of-one theory is not legally cognizable where, as here, a public employee claims that she has been treated differently than other employees.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/17/2008
• Published 09/18/2008

Judges

• HOLMES, Circuit Judge., Before KELLY, McCONNELL, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Daniel J. Macke (Kevin M. Brown with him on the briefs), Brown & German, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees., Steven K. Sanders, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.