Terry Ulrich v. K-Mart Corporation

70 F.3d 1282, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39247, 74 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1792, 1995 WL 703946
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedNovember 30, 1995
Docket94-3267
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 F.3d 1282 (Terry Ulrich v. K-Mart Corporation) 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
Terry Ulrich v. K-Mart Corporation, 70 F.3d 1282, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39247, 74 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1792, 1995 WL 703946 (10th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

70 F.3d 1282

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Terry ULRICH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
K-MART CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-3267.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 30, 1995.

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Terry Ulrich appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant K-Mart Corporation on Plaintiff's claims for sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.2000e to 2000e-17, and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, Kan. Stat. Ann. 44-1001 to 44-1044. See Ulrich v. K-Mart Corp., 858 F.Supp. 1087 (D.Kan.1994). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuinely disputed material issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). We review a summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ball v. Renner, 54 F.3d 664, 665 (10th Cir.1995). Upon careful consideration of the record, the briefs of the parties, the district court's order, and the applicable law, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court's order.

AFFIRMED.

1

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 F.3d 1282, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39247, 74 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1792, 1995 WL 703946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-ulrich-v-k-mart-corporation-ca10-1995.