Williams v. RGA Home Health Services, Inc.
713 F. App'x 732
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Williams sued RGA for breach of an employment contract, seeking damages after the magistrate granted partial summary judgment on liability in Williams’s favor.
- Undisputed facts in district court: the tardiness policy was part of the contract; RGA said Williams was fired for violating that policy; RGA policy required warnings for violations; Williams received no warning before termination.
- The magistrate awarded liability to Williams based on those undisputed facts and left damages for determination.
- At the final pretrial conference RGA orally requested a jury on damages; the magistrate instructed RGA to file the request in a written reply to Williams’s damages brief, but RGA never filed it.
- The magistrate treated Williams’s uncontested damages submission as the damages determination and awarded $85,900; RGA moved to set aside the judgment for denial of a jury trial, which the court denied.
- RGA appealed, arguing (1) genuine issues of material fact precluded partial summary judgment on liability and (2) the denial of a jury trial on damages required setting aside the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether partial summary judgment on breach of contract liability was proper | Williams: undisputed facts establish contract, required warnings, and no warning was given, entitling her to summary judgment on liability | RGA: termination was for tardiness but also for other deficiencies, creating disputed facts | Court: Affirmed partial summary judgment — RGA failed to dispute key facts in district court and did not present alternative-cause argument below |
| Whether judgment must be set aside for denial of jury trial on damages | Williams: RGA waived jury by failing to timely file a written demand; magistrate lawfully awarded uncontested damages | RGA: orally requested a jury at pretrial and was entitled to have damages decided by a jury | Court: Denial affirmed — Rule 38 requires a written, filed demand; failure to file waived the right and district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Cillo v. City of Greenwood Vill., 739 F.3d 451 (10th Cir.) (summary judgment standard; draw inferences for nonmoving party)
- W. Distrib. Co. v. Diodosio, 841 P.2d 1053 (Colo. 1992) (elements of breach of contract claim)
- ClearOne Comm’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F.3d 735 (10th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for denial of relief)
- Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir.) (definition of reversible abuse of discretion)
- Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., 426 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Vesper Const. Co. v. Rain for Rent, Inc., 602 F.2d 238 (10th Cir.) (failure to file timely jury demand constitutes waiver)