United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 20, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30917
Summary Calendar
VERA M. GUILLORY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY, INC; et al,
Defendants,
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY, INC, et al,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District Of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-cv-2125
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-appellant Vera Guillory brought suit against her
former employer, defendant-appellee Southwest Louisiana Legal
Services Society, Inc., et al (“SWLLS”), alleging violations of
both federal and Louisiana anti-discrimination law relating to her
dismissal from SWLLS. The defendants moved for summary judgment,
which the district court granted, dismissing all of plaintiff’s
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-30917
-2-
claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appeals only one aspect of the
district court decision: the dismissal of her claim of retaliatory
discharge under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, LAS,
R.S. 23:301 et seq.. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the
district court erred in dismissing her claim that she was
impermissibly fired for refusing to settle an EEOC complaint that
she had lodged against SWLLS.
This court reviews the district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo. Perez v. United States, 312 F.3d 191, 193 (5th
Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is proper if there are no disputed
issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Id.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in this
case. First, plaintiff’s claim against defendants was premature
under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law. Plaintiff was
required to provide defendants with thirty days written notice of
her intention to bring the retaliatory discharge claim under
Louisiana Law. See LSA-R.S. 23:303(C). She did not provide
defendants with this notice, and her claim, therefore, is
procedurally faulted.
Second, the district court properly held that plaintiff’s
claim fails on its merits. Plaintiff worked for SWLLS for twenty
four years. She developed serious kidney problems and took sick
leave from work on May 8, 2000. During her sick leave, SWLLS paid
plaintiff her regular salary, a full year’s Christmas bonus,
No. 03-30917
-3-
accumulated leave that she never earned and benefits for the eight
months in which she performed no services for them. She was also
offered the opportunity to work from home for part of the week, but
was unable to do so. During this time, plaintiff filed a complaint
with the EEOC claiming that she was being discriminated against
because of her illness. She was ultimately terminated after
attempts to work out a severance agreement and find accommodations
for her failed.
The plaintiff claims that she was terminated in retaliation
for bringing the EEOC complaint against defendant. The record
demonstrates, however, that, far from terminating her in
retaliation for bringing the complaint, SWLLS worked with plaintiff
to accommodate her disability and attempt to provide her with an
equitable retirement package. SWLLS provided plaintiff with
month’s worth of benefits and salary that it was not obligated to
provide. All plaintiff has shown is that SWLLS knew of her EEOC
complaint when it discussed a severance package for her. She
provides no evidence, direct or indirect, of improper motivation.
Under these facts, the district court properly held that
plaintiff’s claim of retaliatory discharge under the Louisiana
Employment Discrimination Law should fail as a matter of law.
AFFIRMED.