A U.S. federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuit brought by a former Staples employee who was fired after the company substantiated a male colleague’s complaint of sexual harassment.
The court ruled that the plaintiff, D.P., failed to provide adequate legal or factual support for her claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and various state laws. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
Allegation of sexual harassment led to firing
D.P. was employed by Staples the Office Superstore, LLC for about two years when a male employee reported her for sexual harassment. Staples investigated the allegation and found it to be substantiated. The company subsequently terminated D.P. under its “zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy.”
Following her termination, D.P. filed a pro se lawsuit alleging wrongful dismissal, claiming violations under Title VII and the ADEA, as well as state-level claims for defamation, libel, and slander. Staples moved to dismiss several of the claims early in the litigation process, and the district court agreed, striking the state law claims along with Title VII claims based on sex discrimination and retaliation.
Summary judgment granted on remaining claims
After discovery concluded, Staples sought summary judgment on the remaining claims—namely, age discrimination under the ADEA, and Title VII claims of hostile work environment, retaliation, and discrimination based on national origin. The district court granted the motion and awarded Staples its legal costs as the prevailing party.
In her appeal, D.P. argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, but the appeals court said she did not provide the necessary support to pursue those claims. “She makes only conclusory assertions that Staples’s motion for summary judgment contained factual errors and that the district court incorrectly decided the facts,” the court wrote. “She provides no citations to the record to support these assertions.”
Procedural issues undermined the appeal
The court emphasized that appellants must meet the standards set out in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28, which requires contentions to be supported by references to both legal authority and the case record. The court found that even with the leniency typically extended to self-represented litigants, D.P. failed to meet this burden.
“Even construing [her] brief liberally, we agree with Staples that she has waived appellate review of any challenges to the district court’s summary judgment ruling by failing to support her argument with citations to the record and legal authority,” the ruling stated.
Discovery and cost issues also dismissed
D.P. also challenged the handling of certain discovery-related motions and the award of costs to Staples. These included:
- A motion to deem facts admitted due to a delayed response from Staples to her requests for admissions;
- A motion to compel discovery;
- A motion to retax costs, arguing financial hardship.
The appeals court found that D.P. had not provided adequate legal briefing to challenge the district court’s discretionary decisions on these matters. “She again relies on conclusory assertions without any citations to the record or legal authority,” the court noted.
While the court acknowledged that pro se litigants are not expected to meet the same standard as lawyers, it reiterated that they must still follow procedural rules. Citing previous rulings, the court wrote that it “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as a litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.”
No prejudice from delayed discovery responses
On the specific matter of the request for admissions, the court sided with the district court’s finding that D.P. was not prejudiced by Staples’ initial failure to respond. “Staples did submit supplemental responses fully answering the requests,” the court noted. “There was no prejudice to [D.P.] from the delay.”
On the motion to compel, the court confirmed it was properly denied as moot when the district court issued its final summary judgment ruling. While Staples argued D.P. had failed to object to non-dispositive orders and thus waived appellate review, the court declined to uphold the waiver on that basis. Instead, it ruled the waiver occurred because D.P. failed to explain how the district court abused its discretion.
Costs properly awarded to Staples
Regarding the award of legal costs to Staples, the court reiterated that costs are routinely granted to the prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Although D.P. argued that paying the costs would create financial hardship, the court said she provided no legal authority to support her argument that costs should be denied.
Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court’s judgment and said the result would have been the same even without finding D.P.’s arguments waived. “We would have reached the same result even without waiver based on the reasoning in the district court’s very thorough 42-page decision,” it concluded.
For more information, see Peterson v. Staples Inc. Human Resources, No. 24-8041 (10th Cir. 2025).
