UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-30065
Summary Calendar
_____________________
KELLY KERVIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; JAMES SIMON,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(96-CV-1693)
_________________________________________________________________
January 8, 1999
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kelly Kervin appeals the adverse summary judgment in her
sexual harassment action against General Motors (GM) and James
Simon.
Kervin was employed not by GM, but by the local union at GM’s
plant. Simon was employed by GM. (Kevin does not appeal the
dismissal of her claims against the local union and two of its
officials.)
Of course, we review a district court's grant of summary
judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court.
E.g., OHM Remediation Services v. Evans Cooperage Co., Inc., 116
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
F.3d 1574, 1579 (5th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is appropriate
where “there is no genuine issue of material fact and ... the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R.
CIV. P. 56(c).
Kervin claims that various acts by Simon constitute sexual
harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e, for which GM is also responsible; that these acts
violate Louisiana anti-discrimination statutes (these state law
claims mirror the federal claims); and that they constitute the
intentional infliction of emotional distress. Pursuant to our de
novo review of the record and review of the briefs, we find summary
judgment proper for essentially the reasons stated by the district
court. See Kervin v. General Motors Corp., et al., No. 3:96-1693,
slip op. (W.D.La. Dec. 16, 1997).
This decision is not affected by the intervening Supreme Court
decisions in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. 2257
(1998), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (1998).
Those cases involved the scope of respondeat superior liability
borne by employers for intermediate supervisor’s acts, rather than
the existence of an employer/employee relationship, at issue here.
AFFIRMED