Opinion ID: 2809783
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Purported Fact Issues

Text: Ms. Martinez first contends the district court made several adverse factual findings in granting summary judgment on her hostile work environment claims. To the extent this argument relies on the stricken portions of the affidavits, however, we have already determined that the district court acted within its discretion in excluding 3 The same legal standards apply to both Title VII and NMHRA claims. See Orr v. City of Albuquerque, 531 F.3d 1210, 1213 n.2 (10th Cir. 2008). -7- the challenged statements and paragraphs. To the extent Ms. Martinez asserts the court resolved certain factual disputes against her, the argument is meritless because on each score the district court actually credited the facts in her favor. Compare, e.g., Aplt. Br. at 39 (“The [district] court dismisses Cody Stewart’s exposure of his genitals at a SWC sponsored event because there is no evidence that Plaintiff was aware of that incident.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), with Aplt. App. at 31-32 (Dist. Ct. Op. dated July 1, 2014) (declining to strike statement that “[i]t was well known in the Southwest Cheese plant that Cody Stewart had a habit of exposing his genitals to female employees[]”), and id. at 47 (Dist. Ct. Op. dated July 10, 2014) (stating that “Plaintiff was also aware that another SWC employee, Cody Stewart, exposed himself to female employees and she was concerned that Stewart would do the same to her[]”). Otherwise, Ms. Martinez simply manufactures alleged disputes where none exist. Compare, e.g., Aplt. Br. at 40 (arguing that the district court inappropriately found that Ms. Martinez made only one complaint to human resources when she actually made two—her initial complaint in September 2008 and a second complaint via her August 2010 grievance letter), with Aplt. App. at 46, 48-49 (Dist. Ct. Op. dated July 10, 2014) (discussing the September 2008 complaint to human resources and the August 2010 grievance letter).