Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 02-1626, SECTION: "D" (5)
February 4, 2004
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the court is the " Motion for Summary Judgment" fled by Defendants, Guste Homes Resident Management Corporation, Cynthia Wiggins, Freddie Williams and David Paul. Plaintiff, Terry Anderson, filed a memorandum in opposition. The motion, set for hearing on Wednesday, February 4, 2004, is before the court on briefs, without oral argument. Having reviewed the memoranda of counsel, the record and the applicable law, the court finds that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part.
Under federal law, Plaintiff may not maintain an action against the individual Defendants (Cynthia Wiggins, Freddie Williams, and David Paul) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., because the Fifth Circuit does not recognize individual liability for employees under Title VII. See e.g., Smith v. Amedisys, Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 448 (5th Cir. 2002); Grant v. Lone Star Company, 21 F.3d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1994).
Nor are the individual Defendants (Cynthia Wiggins, Freddie Williams, and David Paul) liable under the Louisiana antidiscrimination statute, LSA-R.S. 23:302, which also exposes "employers," but not individual employees, to liability. See e.g., Johnson v. Integrated Health Services, Inc., 2002 WL 31246762, *2 (E.D.La. 2002) (Vance, J.).
Further, the individual Defendants (Cynthia Wiggins, Freddie Williams, and David Paul) are not liable under the Louisiana Human Rights Act, LSA-R.S. 51:2231 et seq. That statute provides that:
It shall be an unlawful practice for a person or for two or more persons to conspire:
(1) To retaliate or discriminate against a person because he has opposed a practice declared unlawful by this Chapter. . . .
The Louisiana Human Rights Act makes unlawful discriminatory practices: (1) in public accommodations and advertising public accommodations, § 51:2247, § 51:2248; (2) against breast-feeding mothers, § 51:2247.1; (3) by financial institutions in providing financial services, § 51:2254; and (4) in credit transactions, § 51:2255. Here, Plaintiff does not allege that she opposed any of these unlawful discriminatory practices. Rather, Plaintiff opposed the individual Defendants' alleged employment discrimination.
As a matter of law, the court finds that LSA-R.S. 51:2256. since the amendment of the Louisiana Human Rights Act in 1997, does not apply to unlawful employment discrimination. Before 1997, the Louisiana Human Rights Act made it an unlawful practice to engage in ceratin forms of employment discrimination. ( See LSA-R.S. 51:2242, repealed in 1997). Thus, before 1997, § 51:2256 exposed employees like Cynthia Wiggins, Freddie Williams, and David Paul to individual liability for engaging in conspiracies to retaliate against those who opposed unlawful employment discrimination. Johnson, 2002 WL 31246762, *2.
However, in 1997, the Louisiana legislature repealed LSA-R.S. 51:2242, and passed separate, comprehensive legislation pertaining to employment discrimination. LSA-R.S. 23:302 et seq. As previously mentioned, these new provisions limit liability exposure to "employers", and they do not expose individual employees to liability for participating in conspiracies to retaliate.
Defendant argues (in part) that Defendants, Cynthia Wiggins, Freddie Williams, and David Paul, are not "employers" within the meaning of LSA-R.S. 51:2232(4). However, LSA-R.S. 51:2232(4) was repealed effective August 1, 1997. See LSA-R.S. 51:2232(4) (West 2003 Supp. Pamphlet).
Thus, the court concludes that liability under LSA-R.S. 51:2256 is limited to retaliation against practices made unlawful under the Louisiana Human Rights Act and does not extend to provisions repealed from that Act and now incorporated into LSA-R.S. 23:302. Johnson v. Integrated Health Services, Inc., 2002 WL 31246762, *2; Trahan v. Lowe's, Inc., 2002 WL 1560272, *9 (E.D.La. 2002)(Wilkenson, J.).
Finally, there is nothing in the record that would support Plaintiff's claims against the individual Defendants (Cynthia "Wiggins, Freddie Williams, and David Paul) for slander, defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
As to the remainder of Plaintiff's claims asserted against Defendant Guste Homes, the court finds that Defendant has failed to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Defendant argues that "Plaintiff ( sic) suggestion . . . that her termination was due to discrimination based on sex and/or gender is without basis and not supported by factual and credible evidence." (Defendant's memo, at 5). Defendant twice states that "the record reflects" support for this argument, but Defendant fails to offer any competent summary judgment evidence as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e).
Plaintiff's opposition arguments are similarly unsupported with any competent summary judgment evidence. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant Guste Homes failed to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents that were propounded on August 21, 2003. But Plaintiff fails to explain to the court why she did not file a Motion to Compel. To prevail at Trial, Plaintiff cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or fantasy, but rather she will have to prove her case by a preponderance of evidence.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the' "Motion for Summary Judgment" filed by the individual Defendants (Cynthia Wiggins, Freddie Williams and David Paul) be and is hereby GRANTED, dismissing Plaintiff's claims against the individual Defendants (Cynthia Wiggins, Freddie Williams and David Paul); and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the "Motion for Summary Judgment" filed by Defendant, Guste Homes Resident Management Corporation, be and is hereby DENIED.