IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 01-30102
Summary Calendar
____________________
CHERYL A DUPRE
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
LIFECARE HOSPITALS OF NEW ORLEANS,
LLC; AMERICAN NURSING SERVICES INC;
PATRICIA K SCHEERLE, RN, PRESIDENT
Defendants - Appellees
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
(99-CV-3702-B)
_________________________________________________________________
July 5, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-appellant Cheryl A. Dupre brought suit against
LifeCare Hospitals of New Orleans, L.L.C. (“LifeCare”), American
Nursing Services, Inc. (“ANS”) and Patricia K. Scheerle alleging
that they discriminated against her because of her race in
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Dupre also asserted a state law claim
of defamation. After substantial discovery, the district court
concluded that Dupre had failed to bring forward legally adequate
evidence to survive the defendants-appellees’ motions for summary
judgment and dismissed all of Dupre’s claims.
On appeal, Dupre argues that the district court improperly
disregarded her unsworn handwritten documents offered in opposition
to the summary judgment motions and argues further that the
district court erred in granting the motions. Although the
district court did conclude correctly that the documents that Dupre
offered were not in the proper form, the court nevertheless went on
to consider the allegations made by Dupre and concluded that they
were insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact for
trial.
Dupre clearly feels that she was the victim of discrimination
and defamation. But the causes of action that she asserts have
technical requirements that she must fulfill in order to establish
liability on the part of the defendants-appellees. We agree with
the district court that, on the evidence that Dupre presented to
the district court (and putting aside problems of form), LifeCare
was not Dupre’s employer and therefore cannot be liable under Title
VII. The same is true of Scheerle, who is a supervisor and not an
employer under Title VII. Finally, with respect to ANS, Title VII
requires that Dupre have suffered an adverse employment action
which has, as the district court put it, some degree of finality of
consequence associated with it, such as being fired. The fact that
LifeCare (one customer of ANS) labeled Dupre as “DNR” (do not
return) did not amount to an involuntary termination of her
employment with ANS or to a demotion. She received several more
assignments from ANS and she subsequently resigned her employment.
We have reviewed Dupre’s arguments as best we can discern
them, and we have concluded that the district court did not err in
granting summary judgment for the defendants-appellees. The
district court’s Order and Reasons entered December 13, 2000
correctly disposes of Dupre’s case.
AFFIRMED.