Montano v. Brennan, 17-2053

Background

Montano, a long‑time USPS manager, was hired as Postmaster of Santa Fe in 2011 after district consolidation; Mike Flores became her supervisor. Her position later saw supervision by Trujillo during Flores’s absence.
Montano alleged Flores mocked her voice, used nicknames (“Yaz/Yazzie”), told others to “take a Yaz pill,” subjected her to multiple fact‑finding interviews, and threatened termination; she viewed these as harassment and part of a hostile work environment.
She took FMLA/medical leave; alleges Trujillo required return of USPS equipment while she was on leave and issued a Letter of Warning.
Montano filed two EEOC charges (Jan. 2012 rescinded; March 2013 amended), alleging race, color, sex, age discrimination/harassment and retaliation; EEOC issued a final decision finding no discrimination or retaliation.
District court granted summary judgment for the Postmaster General on both hostile‑work‑environment (sex‑based) and retaliation claims, finding insufficient gender‑based evidence and lack of adverse actions/causal connection or pretext.
On appeal, Montano failed to provide an adequate appendix with summary‑judgment exhibits; the Tenth Circuit denied supplementation, adopted the district court’s factual recitation, and affirmed summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alleged conduct created a sex‑based hostile work environment	Flores’s mocking, nicknames, high‑pitched voice imitation, fact‑finding interviews, threats and discipline amounted to severe or pervasive gender‑based harassment	Incidents, even if offensive, were not shown to be motivated by gender and thus not sufficiently gender‑based to satisfy Title VII	Court affirmed: insufficient evidence that conduct was motivated by gender; no hostile work environment under Title VII
Whether actions constituted materially adverse employment actions for retaliation	Fact‑finding interviews, warnings, equipment removal, threats, and other conduct were retaliatory and materially adverse after EEOC activity	Many incidents are not materially adverse; plaintiff failed to show causal connection between protected activity and most actions	Court affirmed: plaintiff failed to show materially adverse actions or causal link for most incidents
Whether employer’s proffered nonretaliatory reasons were pretextual	Montano argued reasons were pretext and actions were retaliatory	Postmaster General offered legitimate nonretaliatory explanations for supervisors’ conduct	Court affirmed: Montano did not challenge district court’s finding that employer gave legitimate reasons nor show pretext
Procedural: adequacy of appellate appendix and supplementation request	Montano argued appendix was sufficient and sought leave to supplement	Government sought summary affirmance; court required adequate appendix per rules	Court denied Montano’s motion to supplement, declined summary affirmance, but adopted district court’s factual recitation and proceeded to affirm judgment

Key Cases Cited

Burnett v. Sw. Bell Tel., L.P., 555 F.3d 906 (10th Cir. 2009) (appellate review of summary judgment requires parties’ summary‑judgment exhibits)
Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2007) (limitations on arguments not raised in opening brief)
Hiatt v. Colo. Seminary, 858 F.3d 1307 (10th Cir. 2017) (court may decline to consider issues not raised in opening brief)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
Bird v. W. Valley City, 832 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2016) (standard for hostile‑work‑environment claims)
Hansen v. SkyWest Airlines, 844 F.3d 914 (10th Cir. 2016) (elements for prima facie retaliation claim)
Bones v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 366 F.3d 869 (10th Cir. 2004) (failure to challenge alternative grounds for summary judgment forfeits review)