Garcia v. Recondo Technology
17-1221
| 10th Cir. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Theresa Garcia, pro se, sued Recondo Technology under Title VII for sexual harassment (hostile work environment) and retaliation after she complained to HR and filed an EEOC charge.
- Alleged harassment: repeated lewd comments by Frank Delgado, staring/comments from a neighboring co-worker, and overheard lewd remarks by a temporary worker; Garcia reported Delgado after catching him peeking into her cubicle.
- After Garcia reported the harassment, Recondo investigated and took remedial steps; Delgado acknowledged the conduct could be inappropriate and agreed to stop; Garcia did not report further harassment by him.
- Garcia alleged retaliatory acts after her EEOC charge: altered paychecks, denial of overtime and telework, smaller raise than a co-worker, withholding a health-insurance rebate, and eventual termination.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Recondo: it assumed harassment was sufficiently severe but found no employer liability because (1) harassers were co-workers, not supervisors, and (2) Recondo promptly and effectively remedied reported incidents; it also dismissed or rejected most retaliation claims for failure to exhaust or for lack of pretext/causation (termination).
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, limiting review due to Garcia’s inadequate briefing but addressing two arguable points: whether Delgado was a supervisor and whether altered-pay evidence showed pretext. The court found no genuine dispute that Delgado lacked authority to take tangible employment actions and that pay issues were explained by nondiscriminatory reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employer liability for hostile work environment | Garcia contends harassment (Delgado and others) created a hostile workplace and employer failed to remediate | Recondo contends harassers were co-workers, it investigated and took effective remedial steps, and Delgado lacked supervisory power | Court: No employer liability; negligence standard applies to co-worker harassment and Recondo’s prompt remediation defeats liability |
| Whether Delgado was a "supervisor" for vicarious liability | Garcia argues evidence (position statement) shows Delgado was a manager and thus could make employer strictly liable | Recondo and HR affidavit: Delgado was a Business Analyst with no hiring/firing or tangible action authority | Court: Delgado lacked power to take tangible employment actions; Vance standard not met; treated as co-worker |
| Retaliation — altered pay (pretext) | Garcia argues Hutchins shortened/altered her paychecks in retaliation; emails show pay problems following complaint | Recondo: pay issues resulted from timesheet errors, miscommunication, and attempts to correct problems — nondiscriminatory reasons | Court: Affirmed district court — Garcia offered only conjecture; record shows legitimate explanations and prompt remedies, no pretext shown |
| Exhaustion / causation for other retaliation claims (overtime, raise, termination) | Garcia alleged denial of overtime, smaller raise, withheld rebate, and termination as retaliation | Recondo: some claims not raised in EEOC (failure to exhaust); termination lacked causal link to Hutchins and temporal proximity; other denials had nondiscriminatory explanations | Court: Affirmed dismissal/nonreach of most claims — Garcia failed to exhaust some claims; termination lacked causation; other claims inadequately argued and unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. City of Tulsa, 753 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir.) (summary-judgment standard and review described)
- Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir.) (pro se litigants must follow briefing rules; appellate waiver for inadequate briefing)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013) (defining "supervisor" for employer vicarious liability as one empowered to take tangible employment actions)
- Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir.) (court will not second-guess employer disciplinary judgments)
- Starkey ex rel. A.B. v. Boulder Cty. Soc. Servs., 569 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir.) (limits on considering arguments raised first in reply brief)
- Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664 (10th Cir.) (arguments inadequately briefed are waived)