Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01249/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01249-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

• • FILED 

UNITED 

U •--.a a..+-eourtof Appcn.ls mlA»c-. c•rcuit 

STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tentb 1 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

BEVERLY J. KACHEL, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

THE CITY OF PUEBLO, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

SEP 2 ~ 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1249 

(D.C. No. 88-S-743) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff appeals the district court's judgment in favor of 

defendant, entered after trial to the court, on plaintiff's claim 

asserted pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 u.s.c. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1249 Document: 010110090679 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 1 
SS 2000e-2000e-17. 1 On appeal, plaintiff asserts that the 

district court's determination was contrary to the evidence 

presented. Reviewing the district court's factual determinations 

under a clearly erroneous standard, see Gulley v. Orr, 905 F.2d 

1383, 1385 (10th Cir. 1990), we affirm. 

Plaintiff, an employee of defendant's Department of Housing 

and Community Development for fifteen years, applied for the 

vacant position of director of that department. Defendant's city 

manager did not appoint plaintiff as the department's director, 

however, and instead promoted to that position a male employee 

from defendant's finance department. Plaintiff asserted that 

defendant failed to promote her to the director's position, even 

though plaintiff was the better qualified candidate, because she 

was a woman. Plaintiff based her Title VII claim on both a theory 

of disparate treatment and a theory of disparate impact. 

Upon careful review of the record, we determine that the 

evidence presented to the district court supported the trial 

court's determination and, therefore, the district court's 

decision was not clearly erroneous. For substantially the reasons 

stated in the district court's August 2, 1990 order, we AFFIRM the 

1 The district court 

defendant on plaintiff's 

for breach of contract. 

decision on appeal. 

also entered judgment in favor of 

second claim, a pendent state law claim 

Plaintiff does not challenge this 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-1249 Document: 010110090679 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 2 
' 

judgment of the United States District Court for the District of 

Colorado. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-1249 Document: 010110090679 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 3