Hogan v. Colgate Palmolive Co.

Tenth Circuit

Hogan v. Colgate Palmolive Co.

15 F. App'x 759

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedAugust 7, 2001

Docket00-3360

StatusUnpublished

This text of 15 F. App'x 759 (Hogan v. Colgate Palmolive Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hogan v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 15 F. App'x 759 (10th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

McKAY, 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 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 he 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.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

McKAY, 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 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 he 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.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 F. App'x 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogan-v-colgate-palmolive-co-ca10-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack