Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01144/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01144-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 

---

FIL .... J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Cot~r.t of Appea~ Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

BARBARA M. MULLIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

GIRL SCOUTS--WAGON WHEEL COUNCIL, 

a Colorado non-profit corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEB 19 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-1144 

(D.C. No. 91-S-334 ) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR and KELLY, 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff, Barbara M. Mulligan, appeals from an order of the 

district court granting the Defendant Girl Scouts--Wagon Wheel 

Council's motion for sununary judgment. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or sued 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. 

-------- ---

Appellate Case: 92-1144 Document: 010110175791 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 1 
Ms. Mulligan brought this action pursuant t o 29 U.S. C. 

§ 1132 (a ) ( 1 ) (B) , ( 3 ) (B) ( 19 88 ) . Ms . Mulligan alleged that Defendant failed to provide her with continuation coverage in its 

health care plan after she was terminated from her employment, as 

required by the Co~solidated Omnibus Budget Reorganization Act 

(COBRA), 29 u.s.c. § 1161(a) (1988). 

Ms. Mulligan worked for Defendant from 1979 to 1989 as a 

field executive and participated in an employer sponsored group 

health care plan . After her termination, she made a timely election of continuation coverage under COBRA. She received benefits 

for three months as required by Colorado law. After that time, 

Defendant refused to provide additional coverage on the ground 

that it was exempt from COBRA by the small employer exception. 

See id. § 1161 (b ) (employer who employed fewer than twenty 

employees on a typical business day during the preceding calendar 

year is exempt from COBRA requirements) . 

The parties agreed that Defendant had eighteen employees. 

The dispute arose over whether two individuals (the Niskerns) who 

provided janitorial services for Defendant for ten hours a week 

were employees or independent contractors. The parties agree that 

if the Niskerns were employees, Defendant is required to provide 

COBRA benefits for Ms. Mulligan. 

The district court held that the Niskerns were independent 

contractors. Because all material facts are undisputed, we only 

review the propriety of the district court's conclusion, under the 

agreed facts, that the Niskerns were independent contractors. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1144 Document: 010110175791 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 2 
After reviewing the trial court's order, the briefs, the 

cases, and the record, it is our judgment that the decision is 

affirmed for substantially the reasons given by the trial court. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Chief Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-1144 Document: 010110175791 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-1144 Document: 010110175791 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 4