Printer Friendly

Kulikowski v. Board of County Com'rs. of County.

U.S. District Court




Kulikowski v. Board of County Com'rs. of County, 231 F.Supp.2d 1053 (D.Colo. 2002). A white male former county employee brought an action against a county and supervisors alleging sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, denial of equal protection, and retaliation for exercising his free speech rights. The district court held that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation and gender discrimination claims, and that the employee established a prima facie case of reverse discrimination. The court found that the employee's poor work performance might have been a pretext for retaliation against the employee. The employee, who had worked for the county community corrections department for 18 years, had repeatedly questioned the management and make-up of a local domestic violence program, noting that the program's board was composed entirely of females. The employee had suggested that the program might be violating the county's funding regulations. (Boulder County Community Corrections, CO)
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2003, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:PERSONNEL; sex discrimination case
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Feb 1, 2003
Previous Article:Cooper v. Sedgwick County, Kansas.
Next Article:Marcum v. McWhorter.

Related Articles
Sex discrimination and CPA firms.
Punitive damages argued before U.S. Supreme Court in sex discrimination case.
Third Circuit says modifying retirees' benefits is age discrimination.
Court says taxes on awards in discrimination cases are recoverable as damages.
McCall v. Board of Com'rs of County of Shawnee, KS.
Gender nonconformity and the unfulfilled promise of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.
Some modest proposals for challenging established dress code jurisprudence.
Vive la difference? A critical analysis of the justification of sex-dependent workplace restrictions on dress and grooming.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters