Mahl v. Nokia Inc
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 06-30518 Summary Calendar _______________________ MARY MAHL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NOKIA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. December 20, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 05-5243 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mary Mahl appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Nokia, Inc. ("Nokia") on her Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. AFFIRM.1 On her employment discrimination claim, Mahl is unable to present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Nokia Because we agree with the district court's reasoning, we
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Additionally, Nokia's motion to strike new arguments raised by Mahl in her reply brief to this court is GRANTED.
employed the requisite number of employees.
See LA. REV. STAT.
23:302(2). Mahl's affidavit that "to her knowledge" Nokia employed "numerous" people is insufficient to withstand summary judgment. See Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir. 2006)
("Conclusory allegations and unsubstantiated assertions, however, are not competent summary judgment evidence."). Mahl also claims intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the fact that Nokia sent her notice of
termination only days after Hurricane Katrina.
As found by the
district court, although the precise timing is unfortunate, this does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required to state such a claim. 585 So.2d 1205 (La. 1991). The district court's grant of summary judgment to Nokia is AFFIRMED. See White v. Monsanto Co.,
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?