A pair of federal judges summarily dismissed a woman’s racial discrimination lawsuit based on inadequate reasoning and a key factual mistake, the appeals court based in Denver decided on Thursday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit found that U.S. District Court Senior Judge Lewis T. Babcock and U.S. Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher appeared to misunderstand the civil rights allegations before them. The judges dismissed the lawsuit so early in the proceedings that the defendants had not even filed a response to the allegations.

Calling the treatment “problematic,” the 10th Circuit ordered further review of Ashlee Handy’s lawsuit against her former employer under Section 1981, a provision of federal law that protects against intentional racial discrimination.

Handy, who is white, alleged that her coworkers of color were allowed to take time off for their personal domestic violence and abuse issues. In contrast, under similar circumstances she lost her job.

Handy first filed her lawsuit in October 2020, nearly two years after she was terminated from her temporary job staffing a call center for Maximus Inc. According to her lawsuit, Handy’s assignment was to last from Nov. 1 through Dec. 15, 2018, after which she understood she would become a permanent employee.

On Dec. 5, Handy told her office manager that she was experiencing problems at home that might cause her to take time off work. Handy reportedly knew “several minority women at the company were having similar issues, and were being accommodated.”

The following day, Handy’s office manager claimed that Handy’s abuser had come to the worksite with a gun, looking for Handy. On Dec. 10, the office manager informed her that she was being terminated. A letter Handy subsequently received from the company reportedly cited the end of the end of the “contract period” as the reason for her dismissal.

Handy accused Maximus and its management of firing her because she was “a victim of domestic violence, which makes her a member of a protected class.” Colorado Politics typically does not identify victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse, but Handy agreed to be named when reached on Thursday.

Soon after filing her complaint, Gallagher ordered Handy to submit an amended version that complied with federal rules. He also called attention to Handy’s characterization of herself as a “white woman victimized by domestic violence.” Domestic violence victims as a group, Gallagher said, had no apparent protections.

Handy followed Gallagher’s instructions and submitted an amended complaint. Notably, she refocused her lawsuit on her status as a white woman, rather than a domestic violence victim.

“Several Black and Mexican women that worked for Maximus, when Mrs. Handy worked there, constantly dealt with domestic violence issues at home, and we’re (sic) domestic violence victims,” wrote Handy, who represented herself in the case. The women of color reportedly were not terminated, meaning Maximus “treated Mrs. Handy differently, than the above mentioned minority women, because she’s white.”

In March 2021, Gallagher issued a recommendation to toss Handy’s lawsuit. He quoted his previous directive and found that Handy had reiterated “the same facts” from her original complaint.

“Plaintiff fails to set forth that a ‘White’ person, who is a victim of domestic violence is a member of a protected class. Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to comply with the December 2, 2020, Order to Amend,” he wrote. Babcock adopted the recommendation without elaboration.

Handy requested Babcock reconsider, noting that her allegations pointed to race-based termination because similarly-situated workers of color were treated more favorably. She also claimed Maximus had attempted to conceal the real reason for her firing.

Babcock stood by the dismissal, writing briefly: “Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the Court has misapprehended the facts, her position, or the controlling law.”

On appeal to the 10th Circuit, Handy argued that she had plausibly alleged a racial discrimination claim. A three-judge panel for the appeals court agreed.

“The magistrate judge provided essentially no reasoning to support its conclusion that Ms. Handy failed to comply with the Order to Amend, and the district court adopted this recommendation with no additional explanation,” Judge Veronica S. Rossman wrote on Feb. 10.

“Equally problematic, the very limited reasoning the magistrate judge did provide is based on a clearly erroneous factual finding,” she continued. “The magistrate judge misstated Ms. Handy’s claim and failed to account for the significant change she made to her allegations of membership in a protected class.”

Jesse K. Fishman, a lawyer with HKM Employment Attorneys, said white people can put forward claims under Section 1981 similarly to people of color for intentional racial discrimination.

“However, in reverse discrimination cases (i.e. where the plaintiff is of the majority), plaintiffs do not necessarily have the same presumption of discrimination as plaintiffs from a minority do,” she said. Employees must show that their race was a causal factor in their termination.

The panel returned Handy’s case to the district court for review.

The case is Handy. v. Maximus Inc. et al.