Hiatt v Colorado Seminary

Hiatt appealed summary judgment to Seminary and two supervisors in her sex discrimination, and retaliation claims arising from her demotion. The panel affirmed. It held the demotion and the refusal to reinstate her as a supervisor were adverse employment actions, but that Hiatt was not constructively discharged and she did not point to any similarly situated employees and thus failed to prove differential treatment. It held the reasons offered for eh demotion, namely the upheaval among her students she supervised, the ethical issues arising from a romantic relationship with another supervisee and her supervisory style, were legitimate and not discriminatory or retaliatory and Seminary’s consistency in its reliance on the those reasons and the fact they were given to Hiatt before she actively opposed her treatment demonstrate the reasons are not pretextual. It held there was no pretext as to the refusal to reinstate as Seminary acted in good faith based on the totality of the circumstances and the instructions to be aware of power dynamics and act professional were given in good faith.New Mexico Department of Game and Fish v United States Department of the interior

Interior and enjoined officials appealed the issuance of a preliminary injunction barring release of certain wolves without New Mexico permits. The panel, with one judge concurring, reversed. The whole panel held that New Mexico failed to prove a substantial risk of irreparable injury because it presented no evidence that its elk and other herds will actually be impacted by the wolf releases, Interior set out enough information about the release schedule to allow New Mexico to adjust its wildlife management plans and there was no evidence that hundreds of elk and other animals will be killed during the period of wolf releases and a majority held that New Mexico failed to prove substantial risk of irreparable harm based on state sovereignty as it made no legal or factual showing that allowing the releases will interfere in any way with core governmental functions or pressure New Mexico to change its laws. The concurrence argued discussion of the sovereignty issue was unnecessary.