10th Circuit affirms summary judgment for Textron Aviation, ruling that employee Erika Cordova did not…
Cordova v. Textron Aviation
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
10th Circuit affirms summary judgment for Textron Aviation, ruling that employee Erika Cordova did not present enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find unlawful discrimination or retaliation.
Why it matters
The Tenth Circuit upheld a federal district court ruling in favor of Textron Aviation, finding that Cordova failed to present sufficient evidence to support her claims of sex, race, and national origin discrimination, as well as retaliation, under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. The court rejected Cordova's argument that she was misled by Textron's attorney into not attaching evidence to her summary judgment response, finding that the email exchange she cited was about pretrial conference preparation, not summary judgment obligations. The court also noted that Cordova was represented by counsel when she filed her summary judgment response and submitted roughly ninety pages of exhibits at that time, undermining her claim that she was unfairly deprived of the chance to present evidence.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Erika Cordova, whose discrimination and retaliation claims against Textron Aviation are now concluded in the federal courts. More broadly, it serves as a reminder to employees bringing discrimination claims, especially those representing themselves at any stage, that evidence must be properly presented at the summary judgment phase and that communications with opposing counsel will be evaluated on their actual content.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 13, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 13, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 13, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Erika Cordova, a Hispanic woman of Mexican national origin, sued her employer Textron Aviation alleging that her Caucasian male supervisor monitored her more aggressively than other employees, transferred some of her work to a male employee, delayed resolving a workplace safety issue affecting her, made a comment and winked at her involving a new stepstool, and that she experienced intimidating and offensive conduct from two coworkers. She claimed these incidents, all occurring between January and June 2022, amounted to unlawful discrimination and retaliation under federal civil rights laws. The federal district court in Kansas granted summary judgment to Textron after issuing a thorough 54-page order reviewing all claims and evidence. The district court found that Cordova sometimes stated facts without citing any supporting evidence in the record, and concluded that no reasonable jury could find in her favor on any claim. Cordova, who was proceeding without a lawyer for most of the case, had been appointed counsel specifically to help respond to the summary judgment motion. On appeal, Cordova argued primarily that Textron's attorney had deceived her by telling her she did not need to present evidence before trial, causing her to withhold important documents from her summary judgment response. The Tenth Circuit reviewed the actual email exchange and found it clearly concerned preparation for a pretrial conference, not summary judgment obligations, and that it could not reasonably be read as an attempt to mislead her. The court further noted that Cordova was represented by counsel when she filed her summary judgment response and that her response already included approximately ninety pages of exhibits, giving no explanation for why additional evidence could not have been included at that time. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in full. The source text does not reflect any dissent from the three-judge panel. This ruling does not appear to establish new legal precedent, as the opinion is designated as non-binding except for purposes of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, though it may be cited for its persuasive value.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
Appellate Case: 25-3092 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 13, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ERIKA CORDOVA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-3092 (D.C. No. 6:23-CV-01233-DDC) TEXTRON AVIATION, INC., (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, BACHARACH, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Erika Cordova, pro se, sued her employer, Textron Aviation, Inc., alleging unlawful discrimination based on sex (female), race (Hispanic), and national origin (Mexico), and further alleging retaliation for opposing that discrimination. She now appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Textron. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered 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. Appellate Case: 25-3092 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2026 Page: 2 I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Textron builds aircraft, and Cordova worked (and continues to work) on a Textron assembly line. She sued Textron in late 2023, alleging violations of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. She claimed unlawful discrimination based on the following allegations: • her Caucasian male supervisor observed her and demanded progress reports from her much more frequently and aggressively as compared to other employees; • her supervisor transferred some of her work to a new (male) employee; • her supervisor took an unreasonably long time to solve a workplace safety issue affecting her; • her supervisor commented that Cordova could “pose . . . even better than before” on a new stepstool (part of the workplace safety solution just mentioned) and then winked at her, R. at 162 (internal quotation marks omitted); • Cordova felt intimidated when a Caucasian female coworker showed Cordova her phone screen, which was displaying Cordova’s personal information—information the coworker got from the Kansas State Treasury website, which showed that certain unclaimed property belonged to Cordova; and • Cordova walked by a different female coworker who said “fuck you, bitch” to her, R. at 91, ¶ 13. Cordova further alleged that all of these incidents took place between January and June 2022. The district court held a pretrial conference at the close of discovery, before any party had filed for summary judgment. At that conference, the court gave Cordova a deadline by which to move to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 2 Appellate Case: 25-3092 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2026 Page: 3 Cordova timely filed such a motion, and the district court appointed an attorney willing to take Cordova’s case, but only for purposes of responding to Textron’s anticipated summary judgment motion. Textron soon filed for summary judgment on all claims. Through counsel, Cordova responded in opposition. The district court issued a 54-page order thoroughly examining all of Cordova’s claims and all of the evidence the parties submitted. The district court noted that Cordova sometimes asserted facts or disputed Textron’s asserted facts through mere say-so, i.e., with no citation to evidence in the record. Ultimately, as to all of Cordova’s claims, the district court concluded she had not presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in her favor. The district court therefore granted Textron’s motion and entered final judgment against Cordova. Cordova’s appointed counsel withdrew, and Cordova timely filed a pro se notice of appeal, leading to this proceeding. II. ANALYSIS We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Birch v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 812 F.3d 1238, 1251 (10th Cir. 2015). A. Exhibit E and the Alleged Deception Most of Cordova’s arguments on appeal revolve around an allegation that, in the run-up to the pretrial conference, Textron’s attorney took advantage of Cordova’s pro se ignorance and told her she would not need to present evidence until trial, thus misleading her into not attaching evidence to her summary judgment response. She 3 Appellate Case: 25-3092 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2026 Page: 4 therefore claims she was deprived of a fair adjudication based on the defendant’s allegedly deceptive conduct. Exhibit E to her opening brief contains the evidence she claims she would have attached to her summary judgment response but for the deception. There are three significant problems with this argument. The first is that the e-mail containing the supposedly misleading instructions (also attached to Cordova’s opening brief) shows Textron’s attorney never said anything like what Cordova represents. Again, the relevant exchange occurred as the parties were preparing for a final pretrial conference to be held before the summary judgment phase. It begins with Cordova saying, “Good morning Luke, this is Erika Cordova, to my understanding when I spoke to you, you don’t need the exhibits[] at this time[,] Right?” Aplt. Opening Br., Ex. D. Textron’s attorney responds, That is correct - we do not need to prepare a list of trial exhibits at this time. When we do the pretrial order, we will put together a proposed list of exhibits. If you have documents that you intend to use as an exhibit that have not been produced, we would like copies of those. Id. This exchange has nothing to do with summary judgment obligations and it cannot be reasonably interpreted as an attempt to mislead the plaintiff about those obligations. The second problem with Cordova’s argument is that she was represented by counsel when she responded to Textron’s summary judgment motion, and her response brief included about ninety pages of exhibits (e.g., deposition excerpts, internal documents produced by Textron, etc.). Cordova offers no reason why she 4 Appellate Case: 25-3092 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2026 Page: 5 could not have included her Exhibit E evidence along with all the other evidence she submitted in support of her response brief.
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.