* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 10/18/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ALVIN L. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. DONICE NEAL, individually; GERALD GASKO, individually; FRANK GUNTER, individually; WILLIAM BOKROS; HENRY BOOTH, individually,

Defendants-Appellants, and ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, in his official capacity; GEORGE SULLIVAN, individually; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, State of Colorado,

Defendants. No. 95-1474 (D.C. No. 94-Z-420) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *-2-

Before PORFILIO, LOGAN, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Alvin L. Williams, a black man, filed thi s employment discrimination suit after he was discharged from hi s job with the Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center, which is governed by the Colorado Department of Corrections. Plaintiff claims his termination w as improperly based on race rather than any legitimate reason. Defendants, the Department of Corrections and current or former corrections officials, filed moti ons for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s claims against them under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-1 7, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985(3). Judge Zita Weinshienk held a hearing on the motions, stating near its conclusion that plaintiff has given me sufficient facts and allegat ions that I think we at least have to give the plaintiff a chance to pro ve his allegations, which is that there was a chain of command; that [d efendants] Sullivan and Gunter and others were apprised of dis ciplinary actions; that they acquiesced; that they knew and condoned t his particular alleged atmosphere of racial animus.-3-

Appellants’ Br., Transcript of Summary Judgment Hearing at 34-35. Judge Weinshienk therefore denied defendants’ motions forsummary judgment. Defendants Donice Neal, Gerald Gasko, Frank Gunter, William Bokros, and Henry Booth, all sued in their personal capacity, appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment bas ed on qualified immunity. Appellants argue that Judge Weinshienk applied the wrong legal standard for supervisor liability in deciding their motion for s ummary judgment, in that she erroneously failed to conclude that the undisputed facts demonstrate that these appellants did not deliberately violate plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. We hold that Judge Weinshienk applied the correct standard for supervisor liability in an employment discrimination suit, and that we lack jurisdiction to review her finding that material issues of disputedfact exist to be tried. In an employment discrimination suit, “supervisor l iability requires ‘allegations of personal direction or of actual kno wledge and acquiescence.’” Woodward v. City of Worland , 977 F.2d 1392, 1400 (10th Cir. 1992)(quoting Andrews v. City of Philadelphia , 895 F.2d 1469, 1478 (3d Cir. 1990)), cert. denied , 509 U.S. 923 (1993). Judge Weinshienk’s comment at the hearing, quoted above, indicates that she determined the correct le gal standard to apply to appellants’ motion. Appellants are really asking u s to review Judge Weinshienk’s finding that genuine issues of material fact on pla intiff’s claims exist to be tried.-4-

This we cannot do, because the Supreme Court has de termined that appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review fact-based deter minations concerning qualified immunity in an interlocutory appeal. See Johnson v. Jones , 115 S. Ct. 2151, 2156, 2159 (1995); Sevier v. City of Lawrence , 60 F.3d 695, 700 (10th Cir. 1995). The district court’s determination of clearly estab lished law is AFFIRMED; otherwise, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge