Gwendolyn G. Partney, Plaintiff--appellant, v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Defendant--appellee, 47 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 1995)
Annotate this CaseBefore ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT1
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Gwendolyn G. Partney appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, St. Francis Hospital, Inc. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm.
Partney asserted five claims against St. Francis: (1) a claim for breach of contract; (2) a claim for retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C.2000e-3(a); (3) a claim for retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. 621-634; (4) a claim for wrongful termination in violation of Oklahoma public policy; and (5) a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On April 5, 1994, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of St. Francis as to all claims except Partney's retaliatory discharge claim as it related to her 1991 filing of an EEOC complaint, and her claim that she had been wrongfully terminated in violation of Oklahoma public policy. R. Vol. 1, Doc. 88.
Upon motions to reconsider, on August 29, 1994, the district court entered summary judgement in favor of St. Francis on the plaintiff's remaining claims of (1) retaliation under Title VII and the ADEA in response to Partney's filing of the EEOC complaint; and (2) wrongful termination in violation of Oklahoma public policy. R. Vol. 1, Doc. 113. The court affirmed the order of April 5, 1994, in all other respects and entered final judgment in favor of St. Francis.2
We review the district court's entry of summary judgment de novo. James v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 21 F.3d 989, 997-98 (10th Cir. 1994); see Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We have carefully reviewed the record and affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the same reasons as set forth in the thorough and well-crafted orders of April 5 and August 29, 1994.
AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470
The court's April 5, 1994, order was entered by the Honorable Thomas R. Brett. The case was transferred and reassigned to the Honorable Terry C. Kern, on June 13, 1994. Judge Kern entered the order of August 29, 1994, and final judgment in the case
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
