Rodriguez v. Brown

Appellate Case: 21-1124 Document: 010110726534 Date Filed: 08/18/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 18, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JEANETTE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 21-1124 (D.C. No. 1:18-CV-02919-KLM) ARAPAHOE COUNTY SHERIFF (D. Colo.) TYLER S. BROWN, in his official capacity, Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before MATHESON, EBEL, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Plaintiff Jeanette Rodriguez, a deputy sheriff who works at the Arapahoe County detention center, appeals the district court’s decision granting her employer, the Arapahoe County Sheriff, summary judgment on Rodriguez’s employment discrimination claims alleging disparate treatment and hostile work environment based on her race (Hispanic), sex (female), and national origin (Venezuelan). The district court also granted the Sheriff summary judgment on Rodriguez’s claims alleging that the Sheriff retaliated against her when she complained about this * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 21-1124 Document: 010110726534 Date Filed: 08/18/2022 Page: 2 discriminatory mistreatment. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM summary judgment for the Sheriff because Rodriguez failed to present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that any of the mistreatment of which she complains was because on her race, sex, or national origin, or was taken in retaliation for her discrimination complaints. I. BACKGROUND We have carefully considered the evidence in detail, viewing it in the light most favorable to Rodriguez. See Herrmann v. Salt Lake City Corp., 21 F.4th 666, 673 (10th Cir. 2021). Here, we recite that evidence only summarily. Rodriguez has worked as a deputy at the County detention center since 2008; there has never been any problem with her job performance. During annual training in 2015, however, Rodriguez drew the ire of a firearms instructor, Cunningham, during a training simulation in a “shoot house.” Later that same day, while working with a different instructor, Rodriguez committed a safety violation at the shooting range, holstering her weapon while she was in a prone position. As a result of these two problems, Rodriguez was restricted from using her firearm until she passed additional training.1 Although Rodriguez contends that she performed well enough to pass the additional training, Instructor Stevie True and another instructor failed Rodriguez. This began a recurring cycle: Various trainers and supervisors would require 1 Rodriguez was able to continue working despite this firearm restriction because deputies do not carry firearms in the detention center. But she could not perform all of her job duties. For example, Rodriguez was not able to transport detainees outside the jail because that would have required her to carry a firearm. 2 Appellate Case: 21-1124 Document: 010110726534 Date Filed: 08/18/2022 Page: 3 Rodriguez to undergo additional training, after which the …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals