Palzer v. Cox Oklahoma Telcom

<p>FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 23, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MARK ANTHONY PALZER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 19-5094 (D.C. No. 4:15-CV-00564-GKF-JFJ) COXCOM, LLC, d/b/a Cox (N.D. Okla.) Communications Tulsa, Defendant - Appellee, and COX COMMUNICATIONS KANSAS, LLC; COX OKLAHOMA TELCOM, LLC, Defendants. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HARTZ, McHUGH, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Mark Anthony Palzer appeals the district court orders overruling his objection to a magistrate judge’s discovery order, striking his response to the summary * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. judgment motion filed by his former employer, Defendant-Appellee CoxCom, LLC (Cox), and granting summary judgment in favor of Cox on his claims alleging race and age discrimination. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Background Palzer is a Caucasian man over the age of forty. Cox, a telecommunications company, hired him in 2005 as a customer service representative and promoted him to an account executive position in small/medium sales group in 2008. Cox measures an account executive’s performance against two benchmarks: (1) sold quota attainment, which is measured by the dollar amount of contracts signed by the then-potential Cox customer; and (2) installed quota attainment, which is measured by the actual dollar amount of services ultimately installed and billed to the customer. Account executives are expected to meet their monthly sales quotas, but their performance is evaluated using a rolling three-month average, which is expected to be maintained at a minimum of eighty percent to quota attainment. In 2010, Palzer’s then-manager issued Palzer a documented verbal warning and put him on a thirty-day performance improvement plan (PIP) because his attained sales quota over the previous four months was only fifty-one percent. He successfully completed that PIP. In February 2012, Cox’s then-Business Sales Director, Tim Jenney, hired Shelley Stauffer, a Caucasian woman over fifty years old, as the new manager of Palzer’s sales group. Palzer failed to meet his quota in December 2011 and January and February 2012, resulting in a three-month average below the eighty-percent 2 minimum. In March 2012, she put him on another PIP, which he successfully completed at the end of May. Meanwhile, at Jenney’s direction, Stauffer began developing a module sales territory strategy under which the account executives would prospect for and cultivate customers in assigned zip codes. Prior to its implementation, account executives could sell in any zip code in the Tulsa, Oklahoma marketplace. In developing the individual modules, ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4799769/palzer-v-cox-oklahoma-telcom/">Original document</a>

Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on YScam.com, it is strongly advised to avoid Palzer v. Cox Oklahoma Telcom in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Palzer v. Cox Oklahoma Telcom. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike YScam.com, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Palzer v. Cox Oklahoma Telcom is rated 1 out of 5 based on the complaints submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased complaints.
The above complaints and comments against Palzer v. Cox Oklahoma Telcom were submitted by YScam.com user(s) and have been published as-is. YScam.com does not edit, alter or remove content published by it’s users. There’s no amount of money a business can pay to manipulate their complaints and YScam.com will NOT entertain any request to remove the complaint on Palzer v. Cox Oklahoma Telcom at any cost whatsoever.
>