IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-30250
Summary Calendar
STEPHEN A. KLAIMON
Plaintiff - Appellant
versus
CIGNA COMPANIES, ET AL
Defendants
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA
Defendant - Appellee
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
STEPHEN A. KLAIMON
Plaintiff - Appellant
versus
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA
Defendant - Appellee
No. 97-30375
Summary Calendar
STEPHEN A. KLAIMON
Plaintiff - Appellant
versus
CIGNA COMPANIES, ET AL
Defendants
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA
Defendant - Appellee
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
STEPHEN A. KLAIMON
Plaintiff - Appellant
versus
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA
Defendant - Appellee
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(95-CV-3597-J & 96-CV-3457-J)
February 19, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stephen A. Klaimon appeals from summary judgment orders
entered against him on his Title VII and negligent and intentional
infliction of emotional distress claims, as well as from an adverse
jury verdict on a defamation claim. We affirm.
The district court properly entered summary judgment against
Klaimon on his Title VII claim. As we have long stressed, the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
filing of a charge with the EEOC is a prerequisite to instituting
a Title VII action in federal court. See National Ass’n of Govern.
Emp. v. City Pub. Serv. Bd., 40 F.3d 698, 711 (5th Cir. 1994).
Klaimon makes conclusory allegations that he pursued relief
administratively, yet he produced no record evidence to that
effect. Nor has he demonstrated an equitable entitlement to relief
from the administrative exhaustion requirement. Accordingly, his
Title VII claim is barred.
Likewise, the district court properly granted summary judgment
against Klaimon on his intentional and negligent infliction of
emotional distress claims. Klaimon’s complaint did not allege so
egregious a course of conduct on the part of the defendant to
satisfy Louisiana’s strict standards for employment-related
intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. See Booth v.
Intertrans Corp., 1995 WL 324631, at *17 (E.D. La. May 26, 1995).
Similarly, Klaimon has failed to demonstrate how his negligent
infliction of emotional distress claim is not barred by Louisiana’s
workers’ compensation scheme. See La. R.S. 23:1032.
Finally, Klaimon raises a number of challenges to the district
court’s discovery rulings and the outcome of the trial. We find
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in making its
discovery orders. See Krim v. BancTexas Group, Inc., 989 F.2d
1435, 1441 (5th Cir. 1993). Klaimon’s complaints about the jury
verdict are largely unsupported by record evidence or legal
3
argument and accordingly are without merit. See Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
4