Chung v. El Paso School District 11, 659 F. App'x 953

Background

Julia Chung, a long-time teacher in El Paso School District #11, was reassigned several times and in April 2013 was moved from sixth-grade reading to teach drama; she objected and filed an EEOC charge alleging race and national-origin discrimination.
The EEOC dismissed that charge and issued a right-to-sue notice; Chung later applied for a Multi-Lingual Facilitator (MLF) position (denied) and filed suit alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII.
After filing suit, Chung filed a second EEOC retaliation charge and eventually received a right-to-sue notice for it while the case was pending. The district court initially dismissed the retaliation claim without prejudice, then granted reconsideration and reinstated it upon learning Chung had exhausted administrative remedies.
The School District moved for summary judgment on discrimination and retaliation claims; the magistrate judge granted summary judgment for the School District. Chung’s post-judgment motions were denied and she appealed.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed: it held (1) Chung’s reassignment to teach drama was not an adverse employment action for discrimination purposes, (2) the district court properly exercised jurisdiction and reconsidered the retaliation claim, and (3) Chung failed to show causation for retaliation regarding the MLF hiring decision. The court declined to review a later costs award because Chung’s notice of appeal did not cover it.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reassignment to teach drama in 2013 was an adverse employment action for race/national-origin discrimination	Chung: the reassignment harmed her reputation, displaced her from a qualified subject, resulted in loss of stipend and program participation, and imposed worse working conditions	School Dist.: the reassignment was a lateral transfer with no change in pay/benefits and thus not an adverse action	Held: Not adverse; summary judgment on discrimination affirmed (Chung failed prima facie case)
Whether the district court had jurisdiction and could reconsider dismissal of the retaliation claim	Chung: court lacked jurisdiction because she had not received right-to-sue on retaliation claim when suit was filed; court should not have reinstated the claim	School Dist.: Chung exhausted administrative remedies while the case was pending; reinstatement was proper to correct the court’s mistake	Held: Court had jurisdiction; reconsideration was proper; retaliation claim was rightfully reinstated
Whether Chung established a prima facie retaliation claim for denial of the MLF position	Chung: protected activity (EEOC charge and internal participation) caused denial of MLF hire	School Dist.: no causal link—protected activity was too remote and decisionmakers lacked knowledge of the charge	Held: No genuine dispute on causation; summary judgment on retaliation affirmed
Whether this court may review district court’s post-judgment costs award	Chung: the costs award was excessive and should be reviewed on appeal	School Dist.: appeal did not include the post-judgment costs order; no supplemental notice filed	Held: Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review costs because Chung’s notice of appeal did not encompass that post-judgment order

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
E.E.O.C. v. PVNF, L.L.C., 487 F.3d 790 (defines prima facie elements for discrimination/retaliation claims)
E.E.O.C. v. C.R. England, Inc., 644 F.3d 1028 (what constitutes an adverse employment action)
Hinds v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 523 F.3d 1187 (temporal proximity and causation for retaliation)
Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc., 124 F.3d 1221 (exhaustion while suit pending does not deprive court of jurisdiction)