Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03202/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03202-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unit.ed States Court of Appeals 'I'erth Circuit 

MAR 1 f\ 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DEBBIE D'ZURELLA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

STATE OF KANSAS; DEPARTMENT OF ) 

SOCIAL REHABILITATION SERVICES; ) 

DR. ROBERT L. HARDER, Secretary ) 

State Department of Social ) 

Rehabilitation Services; JULI A ) 

LAMBERT, Supervisor State ) 

Department Social Rehabilitation ) 

Services, and Individually; ) 

STEVE LUSK, Supervisor State ) 

Department of Social Rehabilita- ) 

tio n Services, and Individually; ) 

MIKE OLIVER, Employee, State ) 

Department of Social Rehabilita- ) 

tion Services, and Individually; ) 

ERNIE DYER, Supervisor State ) 

Department of Social Rehabilita- ) 

tion Services, and Individually; ) 

BARBARA GAINES, Supervisor ) 

State Department of Social ) 

Rehabilitation Services and ) 

Individually, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

NELSON MARTIN, Employee, State ) 

Department of Social Rehabilita- ) 

tion Services, and Individually; ) 

ROZ MUIRHEAD, Supervisor State ) 

Department of Social Rehabilita- ) 

tion Services, and Individually, ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

No. 90-3202 

(D.C. No. 86-2529) 

(Di st. Kansas) 

Appellate Case: 90-3202 Document: 010110031210 Date Filed: 03/18/1991 Page: 1 
.. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

Debbie D'Zurella brought this action under 42 u.s.c. § 

2000e-5 (1988) (Title VII) 1 asserting retaliation and constructive 

discharge against the Kansas State Department of Social and 

Rehabilitation Services (SRS) and eight SRS employees. The 

district court granted summary judgment in favor of individual 

defendants Robert Harder, Julia Lambert, and Steve Lusk. The 

court also granted summary judgment against D'Zurella on her 

constructive discharge claim, holding that this claim, as to which 

D'Zurella had not filed an administrative charge, was not within 

the scope of the EEOC retaliation charge she did file. Finally, 

*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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

1 D'Zurella originally asserted claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 

1981, 1983 and 1985 in addition to her Title VII claims. She 

states on appeal that these claims were eliminated by the court at 

a pretrial conference. Although the district court docket sheet 

indicates that a pretrial proceeding was held on June 26, 1989, 

that D'Zurella objected to the proposed pretrial order presumably 

resulting from this pretrial conference, and that a pretrial order 

was entered on September 11, 1989, none of these occurrences are 

included in the record on appeal. We are not told, nor are we 

able to discern from the record, the grounds on which the district 

court dismissed these civil rights claims. We are thus unable to 

review the propriety of the dismissals. We note, however, that 

the disposition of the Title VII claims covered by this order 

would equally dispose of the claims under section 1983. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3202 Document: 010110031210 Date Filed: 03/18/1991 Page: 2 
the court found in favor of the SRS and individual defendants 

Barbara Gaines and Ernest Dyer after a bench trial. 2 D'Zurella 

appeals prose and we affirm. 

I. 

D'Zurella filed her complaint on November 21, 1986. She 

moved to amend and add a First Amendment claim under 42 u.s.c. § 

1983 on September 12, 1989, after discovery had been completed, a 

pretrial order entered, and the case set for trial. The district 

court denied D'Zurella leave to amend, citing her failure to 

establish sufficient good cause for a delay of well over two years 

and the prejudice to defendants from the need to undertake 

additional discovery at that late point in the proceedings. We 

agree. 

The district court recognized that while leave to amend under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. lS(a) "shall be fully given when justice so 

requires," unexcused and truly inordinate delay alone may be a 

sufficient basis for denial of the motion, see Rec., vol. II, doc. 

223 at 2 (citing First City Bank v. Air Capitol Aircraft Sales, 

Inc., 820 F.2d 1127, 1133 (10th Cir. 1987)). Here, in addition to 

undue delay, the court relied on prejudice to defendants and 

2 The claims against defendants Roz Muirhead and Nelson 

were dismissed with prejudice, a ruling D'Zurella does not 

challenge on appeal. Proceedings against Mike Oliver were 

pending bankruptcy. 

-3-

Martin 

stayed 

Appellate Case: 90-3202 Document: 010110031210 Date Filed: 03/18/1991 Page: 3 
D'Zurella's failure to establish cause for the delay, noting that 

she had been represented by counsel since shortly after filing her 

complaint. In so doing, the court acted well within its 

discretion. See Las Vegas Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Far West 

Bank, 893 F.2d 1182, 1184-85 (10th Cir. 1990). 

II. 

Defendants SRS, Lusk, and Dyer moved for summary judgment on 

D'Zurella's constructive discharge claim, asserting that she had 

not exhausted her administrative remedies as to that charge. The 

filing of a charge of discrimination with the EEOC "is a 

jurisdictional prerequisite to the institution of a lawsuit." 

Romero v. Union Pac. R.R., 615 F.2d 1303, 1311 (10th Cir. 1980). 

However, EEOC complaints are to be liberally construed, id., and 

the scope of a charge is considered to include "any discrimination 

like or reasonably related to the allegations of the EEOC charge." 

Brown v. Hartshorne Pub. School Dist. No. 1, 864 F.2d 680, 682 

(10th Cir. 1988) (quoting Oubichon v. North Am. Rockwell Corp., 

482 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1973)). A claim is reasonably related 

to an EEOC charge if "the original EEOC investigation would have 

encompassed the additional charges." Green v. Los Angeles County 

Superintendent of Schools, 883 F.2d 1472, 1476 (9th Cir. 1989). 

We agree with the district court that D'Zurella's claim of 

constructive discharge allegedly occurring in May 1988, three 

years after the EEOC charge was filed and two years after she 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3202 Document: 010110031210 Date Filed: 03/18/1991 Page: 4 
• 

any of the four occasions alleged to be retaliatory. 

Similarly, defendant Lusk, although plaintiff's 

supervisor in 1983, left employment with SRS in 1984. 

Plaintiff's only allegation against Lusk is that he told 

her in 1983 that there would be no retaliation against 

her for filing the KCCR complaint." 

Rec., vol. II, doc. 223 at 10. Based on the above facts, the 

court concluded that D'Zurella had failed to raise a genuine issue 

of fact as to whether these defendants knew of or acquiesced in 

the alleged retaliatory conduct. Our own review of the record, 

conducted most favorably to D'Zurella, leads us to agree with the 

lower court. Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment for these 

defendants. 

IV. 

Finally, D'Zurella complains that the testimony of her expert 

witness was disallowed at trial, and that the district court's 

findings in favor of de.fendants SRS, Gaines, and Dyer are clearly 

erroneous. Our review of these issues is precluded by D'Zurella's 

failure to include the trial transcript in the record on appeal. 

"Without the record before us to substantiate the general 

allegations of error, we must defer to the trial court's decisions 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-3202 Document: 010110031210 Date Filed: 03/18/1991 Page: 5 
• 

in these areas." Moore v. Subaru of America, 891 F.2d 1445, 1448 

(10th Cir. 1989). 

AFFIRMED. 

-7-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3202 Document: 010110031210 Date Filed: 03/18/1991 Page: 6