Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-14-01368/USCOURTS-ca10-14-01368-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

KATHLEEN CHYTKA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC., 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 14-1368 

(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-00968-REB-KMT) 

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before MORITZ, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Kathleen Chytka, a female over the age of 40 proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court’s entry of judgment in favor of her former employer, Wright Tree 

Service, Inc. (WTS), on her claims of age and gender discrimination and hostile work 

environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and 

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). She also asserted violations of 

 

*

 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 25, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-1368 Document: 01019404613 Date Filed: 03/25/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

the Equal Pay Act (EPA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In addition, she asserted state-law claims 

of promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment, and violations of various 

constitutional rights. We affirm. 

I. Background 

 WTC employed Chytka as a Job Planner from September 1999 until July 6, 

2009, when it terminated her employment. Chytka’s job duties included making 

arrangements with homeowners and businesses for WTS to clear trees and vegetation 

from utility and mechanical lines, among other services. Xcel Energy (Xcel), a major 

customer of WTS, provided electricity and natural gas to over 150 communities in 

Colorado. Chytka worked closely with Xcel supervisors in arranging to provide 

WTS services for Xcel and its customers. 

 In 2007, Xcel supervisor Adam Pena became WTS’s contact. Chytka’s job 

required her to work with Pena. In April 2009, Pena complained to WTS about 

Chytka’s failure to notify homeowners that WTS would be trimming vegetation on 

their property at Xcel’s request. On June 9, June 30, and July 3, 2009, Pena lodged 

additional complaints about Chytka’s job performance. In view of the complaints 

from its largest customer, WTS decided to discharge Chytka. 

 As part of their compensation, WTS employees were eligible to participate in a 

company stock ownership plan (Plan), governed by ERISA. The Plan provided that 

Chytka could obtain her vested account balance five years after leaving her 

Appellate Case: 14-1368 Document: 01019404613 Date Filed: 03/25/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

employment with WTS. Chytka alleged she and WTS entered into an employment 

agreement whereby WTS promised not to discriminate or retaliate against her on the 

basis of gender or age. 

 After receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, Chytka filed this action. 

Following discovery, WTS moved for summary judgment. A magistrate judge 

recommended granting summary judgment on all but one of Chytka’s claims and the 

district court adopted that recommendation. The remaining claim—gender 

discrimination based on WTS’s failure to train Chytka to climb, trim, and remove 

trees—proceeded to jury trial. After Chytka presented her evidence, WTS moved for 

judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. The district court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of 

WTS. Chytka appeals all rulings of the district court. In addition, she seeks relief 

based on a right to counsel, several constitutional amendments, and judicial bias. 

II. Summary Judgment 

We first consider Chytka’s challenges to the summary judgment entered on all 

but one of her claims. “A grant of summary judgment must be affirmed if the 

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 

(10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although “[w]e consider the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, . . . unsupported 

Appellate Case: 14-1368 Document: 01019404613 Date Filed: 03/25/2015 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

conclusory allegations do not create a genuine issue of fact.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

We analyze Chytka’s discrimination claims under the burden-shifting 

framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under this 

framework, it is Chytka’s initial burden to establish a prima facie case of 

discrimination. Once she does so, the burden shifts to WTS to articulate a legitimate, 

nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Lobato v. N.M. Envtl. 

Dep’t, 733 F.3d 1283, 1288 (10th Cir. 2013). If WTS makes the required showing, 

the burden returns to Chytka to show a genuine dispute about whether the proffered 

explanation was pretext for discrimination. Id. at 1289. 

 We liberally construe Chytka’s pro se filings. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 

U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 

836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). But we don’t assume responsibility to serve as the 

litigant’s counsel by constructing arguments or searching the record. Garrett, 425 

F.3d at 840. And we repeatedly reiterate that pro se parties must follow the same 

rules of procedure governing other litigants. Id. 

 The district court first dismissed Chytka’s age and gender discrimination 

claims based on WTS’s failure to promote her to the position of Operations Manager, 

concluding she failed to exhaust administrative remedies on those claims. The court 

granted summary judgment on Chytka’s claim that WTS discriminated against her on 

the bases of gender and age by failing to promote her to the position of General 

Appellate Case: 14-1368 Document: 01019404613 Date Filed: 03/25/2015 Page: 4 
- 5 - 

Foreman and by discharging her. The court concluded she failed to present a prima 

facie case on the promotion claim because it was undisputed she lacked the 

qualifications for that position. Regarding her discharge claim, the court rejected 

Chytka’s conclusory claim that she received different treatment than male employees 

and concluded she failed to present a genuine issue of fact as to pretext. The district 

court also granted summary judgment on Chytka’s hostile work environment claim, 

finding the evidence insufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to the existence of 

a hostile work environment due to gender or age. 

 Further, the district court granted WTS summary judgment on Chytka’s EPA 

and FLSA claims, finding she presented insufficient evidence to resist summary 

judgment on those claims. Next, noting Chytka’s failure to provide evidence she 

exhausted her administrative remedies on her ERISA claim, the court granted 

summary judgment against her on that claim. Finally, the court granted WTS 

summary judgment on Chytka’s state-law claims, holding federal law preempted her 

unjust-enrichment claim, and the alleged agreement not to discriminate was not 

enforceable under a promissory-estoppel theory. 

 On appeal, Chytka fails to assert any argument as to how the district court 

erred, either in finding no disputed issues of material fact or in applying the law. 

Rather, her rambling and repetitive briefs assert general claims of unfairness 

and discrimination. Although we construe her pro se filings liberally, the failure 

to “advanc[e] [any] reasoned argument as to the grounds for the appeal,” is 

Appellate Case: 14-1368 Document: 01019404613 Date Filed: 03/25/2015 Page: 5 
- 6 - 

insufficient appellate argument. Am. Airlines v. Christensen, 967 F.2d 410, 415 n.8 

(10th Cir. 1992); accord Habecker v. Town of Estes Park, 518 F.3d 1217, 1223 n.6 

(10th Cir. 2008) (finding appellant’s suggestion that the trial court erred to be 

insufficient appellate argument absent any reasoned argument as to the grounds for 

the appeal); United States v. Wooten, 377 F.3d 1134, 1145 (10th Cir. 2004) (“The 

court will not consider such issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, 

unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation.” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment to WTS on all but one of Chytka’s claims. 

III. Jury Trial on Failure-to-Train Claim 

 At the close of Chytka’s evidence, the district court granted WTS’s motion for 

judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) on Chytka’s claim that WTS 

discriminated against her based on her gender by failing to train her to climb, trim, 

and remove trees. Chytka contends the district court erred because she proved she 

would have had to take a pay cut to receive the desired training, the district court 

would not allow her to present her witnesses and exhibits and unfairly restricted her 

cross-examination of WTS’s witnesses, she did not receive copies of WTS’s exhibits 

until shortly before trial, and her evidence was sufficient to resist the Rule 50(a) 

motion. 

 Chytka’s failure to provide this court with a trial transcript precludes review of 

her challenge to the judgment as a matter of law. “If the appellant intends to urge on 

Appellate Case: 14-1368 Document: 01019404613 Date Filed: 03/25/2015 Page: 6 
- 7 - 

appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to 

the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence 

relevant to that finding or conclusion.” Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); see also

Fed. R. App. P. 11(b) (indicating that appellant must order necessary transcripts); 

10th Cir. R. 10.1(A)(1) (stating appellant has the duty to provide all necessary 

transcripts related to the issues on appeal). Although Chytka asserts in her reply 

brief that the court clerk informed her the court would obtain the transcript, the rules 

specify the appellant must arrange for necessary transcripts. Fed. R. App. P. 

10(b)(2); cf. 10th Cir. R. 11.2(A) (stating that in pro se appeal district court will 

forward the record to the circuit clerk). Her pro se status does not exempt her from 

following the rules or from providing an adequate transcript. See Murray v. City of 

Tahlequah, 312 F.3d 1196, 1199 n.3 (10th Cir. 2002); 10th Cir. R. 11.2(A) (stating 

that in pro se cases, district court sends only the transcripts that have been filed for 

appeal). The absence of a “transcript leaves us with no alternative but to affirm.” 

Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1221, 1238 (10th Cir. 

1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Appellate Case: 14-1368 Document: 01019404613 Date Filed: 03/25/2015 Page: 7 
- 8 - 

IV. Remaining Arguments 

 Chytka repeatedly asserts in conclusory fashion that she was not allowed 

discovery but she fails to identify any objectionable discovery orders, explain why 

any orders were improper or how she was prejudiced by any discovery order. Again, 

it’s not this court’s role to sift through the record searching for evidence supporting 

Chytka’s claims, and we deny relief on this argument. See Roska ex rel. Roska v. 

Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, 1246 n.13 (10th Cir. 2003) (declining to search record for 

support for plaintiffs’ contention). 

 We also reject Chytka’s assertion that she was entitled to attorney 

representation throughout the trial. A civil litigant such as Chytka does not have a 

Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Beaudry v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 331 F.3d 1164, 

1169 (10th Cir. 2003). Similarly, Chytka has not shown a violation of any other 

constitutional right. 

 To the extent Chytka pursues claims for breach of contract, disparate impact, 

and quid-pro-quo harassment, she fails to indicate whether she presented these claims 

in the district court, and our review of her amended complaint indicates she failed to 

do so. Therefore, we do not consider these claims raised for the first time on appeal. 

See McDonald v. Kinder-Morgan, Inc., 287 F.3d 992, 999 (10th Cir. 2002) 

(“[A]bsent extraordinary circumstances, we will not consider arguments raised for 

the first time on appeal.”). 

Appellate Case: 14-1368 Document: 01019404613 Date Filed: 03/25/2015 Page: 8 
- 9 - 

 Chytka’s claims of judicial bias also fail since her complaints about the 

magistrate judge and the district court are limited to adverse rulings. Bixler v. 

Foster, 596 F.3d 751, 762 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Adverse rulings alone do not 

demonstrate judicial bias.”). 

V. Chytka’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal 

 Finally, Chytka has filed a motion to supplement the appellate record with an 

extensive list of documents filed in the district court. In addition, she requests 

supplementation of the record with documents that may not have been filed with the 

district court, such as settlement correspondence, discovery responses, and a binder 

of unspecified exhibits. All documents filed in the district court are part of the record 

available for our review. Fed. R. App. P. 10(a). Documents regarding settlement 

negotiations are not admissible “either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of 

a disputed claim.” Fed. R. Evid. 408(a). As for the requested discovery, Chytka has 

not attempted to explain its relevance. Further, without the trial transcript, we cannot 

review any alleged trial errors. Accordingly, we deny as moot Chytka’s motion to 

supplement the record as to the documents in the record, and otherwise we deny the 

motion as it fails to present the “rare exception” to Fed. R. App. P. 10(e). See United 

States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1191-92 (10th Cir. 2000) (explaining generally 

record cannot be supplemented with documents not filed with the district court). 

 

Appellate Case: 14-1368 Document: 01019404613 Date Filed: 03/25/2015 Page: 9 
- 10 - 

VI. Conclusion 

 The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Nancy L. Moritz 

 Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-1368 Document: 01019404613 Date Filed: 03/25/2015 Page: 10