Case Explained: Mitchell-Pennington v. Installtec

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-11 Docket: 2:23-CV-02324-JWB-RES) The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s final judgment for the defendant, Installtec, Inc., on all of plaintiff Lee Andrew Mitchell-Pennington’s employment discrimination and retaliation claims. The appellate court confined its review to the retaliation claims because Mitchell-Pennington waived any challenge to the dismissal of his Title VII and ADA discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims by failing to address them in his opening brief. The court applied a de novo standard of review to the summary judgment decision, determining that no genuine dispute existed regarding material facts and that Installtec was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Regarding the retaliation claims under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the court held that while Mitchell-Pennington engaged in protected activity and suffered an adverse employment action by being terminated, he failed to provide sufficient evidence establishing a causal connection between his complaints and his termination. The court found the district court correctly relied on uncontroverted facts showing Installtec fired Mitchell-Pennington for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons, including refusing to perform duties, failing to follow instructions, aggression toward coworkers, missing work, and recording others instead of working. Additionally, the court rejected Mitchell-Pennington’s arguments regarding the lack of a summary judgment hearing and the dismissal of his affidavit as conclusory and self-serving, noting that unsubstantiated allegations carry no probative weight in summary judgment proceedings. As a practical consequence, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Installtec on the retaliation claims remains in effect, resulting in final judgment for the defendant. The court also granted Mitchell-Pennington’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, requiring him to continue making partial payments until his entire fee is paid. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.