FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 26, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court URSULA LENHARDT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 20-3061 (D.C. No. 5:18-CV-04125-SAC-ADM) MHALSA HOSPITALITY, INC.; (D. Kan.) RAKESH M. PAI, Defendants - Appellees, and JESSE OJEDA, Defendant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before BACHARACH, Circuit Judge, LUCERO, Senior Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ * We conclude that oral argument would not materially help us to decide the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). So we have decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). This appeal grew out of a lawsuit for employment discrimination. The plaintiff, Ms. Ursula Lenhardt, is an immigrant who worked for a motel in Kansas. During her employment, Ms. Lenhardt allegedly experienced sexual harassment, spurring her to quit the job in 2015. She later sued the employer under Title VII, claiming employment discrimination. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of the employer, but allowed Ms. Lenhardt to seek leave to amend the complaint. She tried, beefing up her claim under Title VII and adding a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. But the district court regarded both claims as deficient even with the additions proposed in the amended complaint, so the court denied leave to amend on the ground of futility. We affirm. 1. We conduct de novo review on the issue of futility. When reviewing denial of leave to amend, we apply the abuse-of- discretion standard. Castanon v. Cathey, 976 F.3d 1136, 1144 (10th Cir. 2020). Though this standard is deferential, we regard a legal error as an abuse of discretion. Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 433 F.3d 703, 709 (10th Cir. 2005). And futility involves a legal issue, so we conduct de novo review when the district court disallows amendment of a complaint based on futility. Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723, 731 (10th Cir. 2010). 2 2. Title VII: Ms. Lenhardt was late in submitting an administrative claim. The adequacy of Ms. Lenhardt’s Title VII allegations turns on the timing of her administrative complaint. Under Title VII, a victim of employment discrimination can sue only after filing an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or a similar agency for the state or locality. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(1); Proctor v. United Parcel Serv., 502 F.3d 1200, 1206 n.3 (10th Cir. 2007). The administrative complaint is due 300 days after the alleged discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(1). Ms. Lenhardt filed an administrative complaint in 2018. But she had quit the job roughly 2 ½ years earlier. So the administrative complaint would ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals