Sanders v. TC Transcontinental Tulsa

── Sanders v. TC Transcontinental Tulsa ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-5022 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 7, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court TANISHA SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-5022 (D.C. No. 4:23-CV-00345-GAG-JFJ) TC TRANSCONTINENTAL TULSA, (N.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, EID, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Tanisha Sanders, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to TC Transcontinental Tulsa, her former employer, in her civil action alleging racial discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation in 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Because Ms. Sanders proceeds pro se, we construe her arguments liberally, 1 but we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [her] attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).  Appellate Case: 25-5022 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 2 violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(1), e-3(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. BACKGROUND TC Transcontinental hired Ms. Sanders as a supply chain manager in January 2022. Her direct supervisor was Kelly Sivadon. In August 2022, the company terminated Ms. Sanders’s employment. After exhausting her administrative remedies, Ms. Sanders sued TC Transcontinental in the Northern District of Oklahoma. Ms. Sanders, a Black woman, alleged TC Transcontinental discriminated against her. She claims she was terminated because of her race and her sex and in retaliation for her complaints related to two incidents with Ray Jestice, another TC Transcontinental employee who was her subordinate. In one incident, in response to Ms. Sanders’s discussing preferred lunch options with her team, Mr. Jestice suggested Evelyn’s Restaurant, a soul food establishment. In the other, Mr. Jestice showed photographs to another co-worker of female bodybuilders wearing bathing suits. Ms. Sanders also asserted, based on these two incidents, that TC Transcontinental created a hostile work environment. TC Transcontinental moved for summary judgment. The company included in its motion a list of thirty-one “undisputed material facts” (UMF) in compliance with the district court’s Local Civil Rule 56-1(b). Ms. Sanders’s response to the motion included her responses to nineteen of TC Tra