Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01257/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01257-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alan Padilla
Appellant
United Airlines, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

( 

\ 

ALAN 

v. 

PADILLA, 

PUBLISH 

FILED 

United States Coprt ~f Appeals Tenth C1rcu1t 

NOV 2 6 1991 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee/ ) 

Cross-Appellant, ) 

) 

) No. 89-1246 

) No. 89-1257 

UNITED AIR LINES, INC., ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant/ ) 

Cross-Appellee. ) 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado 

(D.C. No. 88-A-400) 

Michael D. Nesler of Rothgerber, Appel, Powers & Johnson, Denver, 

Colorado (Kathleen Cobb of United Air Lines, Inc., Chicago, 

Illinois and Samuel M. Ventola and Kathryn M. Sistrunk of 

Rothgerber, Appel, Powers & Johnson, Denver, Colorado, with him on 

the briefs), Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. 

John Mosby, Denver, Colorado (Elisa J. Moran, Denver, Colorado, 

with him on the brief), Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee/ 

Cross-Appellant. 

Before LOGAN, MCWILLIAMS, and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 89-1257 Document: 010110097018 Date Filed: 11/26/1991 Page: 1 
On March 16, 1988, Alan Padilla filed a complaint against 

United Airlines, Inc. (United), alleging that United had 

discriminatorily terminated him in violation of 42 u.s.c. § 1981 

(1988). Following a bench trial on the merits, the district court 

found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him costs and 

$4,117.68 in backpay. One day later, the Supreme Court limited 

the cause of action under section 1981 to "discrimination in the 

'mak[ing] and enforce[ment]' of contracts alone." 

McLean Credit Union, 109 s. Ct. 2363, 2372 (1989). 

Patterson v. 

On Motion for 

Reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's new holding, the 

district court affirmed its verdict for Mr. Padilla, ordered 

United to remove the "Ineligible for Rehire" notation on Mr. 

Padilla's record, and denied Mr. Padilla's cross-motion for 

increased damages. United contends on appeal that Patterson 

precludes a cause of action for discriminatory discharge as a 

matter of law, and further that the verdict is unsupported by the 

evidence. Mr. Padilla continues to challenge the lower court's 

award of damages as insufficient. 

Patterson was only a few weeks old when District Judge Arraj 

was called on to interpret its applicability to discriminatory 

discharge. Since then, we have joined the majority of circuits in 

holding that discriminatory discharge is not actionable under 

section 1981, as limited by Patterson. See Trujillo v. Grand 

Junction Regional Center, 928 F.2d 973, 975-76 (10th Cir. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1257 Document: 010110097018 Date Filed: 11/26/1991 Page: 2 
1991)(citing cases). We therefore reverse the order of the 

district court and its award of backpay. 

Mr. Padilla argues on appeal that, regardless of our holding 

on the issue of discriminatory discharge, United's conduct in 

marking his employment file "Ineligible for Rehire" constituted a 

discriminatory failure to rehire. 1 Mr. Padilla alleged only 

discriminatory discharge below in both his complaint and the 

pretrial order, however, and the case was tried on that claim. We 

are thus precluded from reviewing the rehire claim. Cf. Prather 

v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 918 F.2d 1255, 1258-59 (6th Cir. 

1990) (upholding denial of untimely motion to amend pre-Patterson 

complaint at summary judgment stage to conform to Patterson's 

r limitations), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2889 (1991). We therefore 

express no opinion as to whether a cause of action for rehire 

survives Patterson, and point out only that those courts that have 

faced the issue so far have reached differing conclusions. 

Compare Tillman v. Beaver Express Serv., 1991 WL 26936 (D.Kan 

1991) (cause of action for failure to rehire under section 1981); 

Williams v. Avco Lycoming, 755 F.Supp. 47, 51 (D.Conn. 1991) 

(same) with Smith v. Continental Ins. Corp., 747 F.Supp. 275, 282 

(D.N.J. 1990) (no cause of action for failure to rehire under 

1 By the time the case reached us on appeal, United had rehired 

Mr. Padilla for a permanent part-time position pursuant to a 

settlement agreement in related state court litigation. Mr. 

Padilla's rehire claim is not mooted, however, because he asserts 

he should have been rehired for a permanent full-time position. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1257 Document: 010110097018 Date Filed: 11/26/1991 Page: 3 
Section 1981); Zeiour v. Chevron U.S.A., 1989 WL 140228 (E.D.La. 

1989)(same); Carter v. O'Hare Hotel Investors, 736 F.Supp. 158, 

160 (N.D.Ill. 1989) (same); Eklof v. Bramalea Ltd., 733 F.Supp. 

2 935 (E.D.Pa. 1989) (same). 

As a result of our holding, we need not reach United's other 

claims or Mr. Padilla's cross-appeal. The order of the district 

court is REVERSED. 

2 The question of exactly how narrowly Patterson restricts 

section 1981 may soon be mooted by the proposed Civil Rights Act 

of 1991, S. 1745, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991), which reverses 

Patterson and several other recent Supreme Court civil rights 

cases. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-1257 Document: 010110097018 Date Filed: 11/26/1991 Page: 4