Case Name: Cara FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of KANSAS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-11-16
Citations: 22 F. App'x 967
Docket Number: No. 01-3026
Parties: Cara FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of KANSAS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 967–968

Head Matter:
Cara FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of KANSAS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-3026.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Nov. 16, 2001.
Before KELLY, BALDOCK and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.
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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Cara Freeman appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, the State of Kansas. The parties are familiar with the facts, so we need not repeat them here. We affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons given by the court in its opinion dated January 29, 2001.
We note that the district court, in an otherwise thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion, misstated the prima facie elements of a discriminatory discharge claim. Yet reflecting its meticulous work, the court was careful to note that even if Ms. Freeman could establish a prima facie case, she could not rebut the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her discharge. Thus the district court's erroneous reliance on Elmore v. Capstan, Inc., 58 F.3d 525, 529-30 (10th Cir.1995), had no effect on the ultimate disposition of Ms. Freeman's case.
Ms. Freeman's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Her motion for leave to "file a brief out of time," which is construed as a motion to file a supplement to her reply brief, is GRANTED. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.