Hannah Jegart, et al v. Diocese of Houma-Thibodaux, et al

Filing 511160319

Hannah Jegart, et al v. Diocese of Houma-Thibodaux, et al

Doc. 511160319

Case: 10-30003

Document: 00511160319

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/30/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
June 30, 2010 N o . 10-30003 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

H A N N A H RAE JEGART; DENEEN T. SPINELLA, Mother of Hannah Rae J ega rt, P la in t iffs ­ Appellants v. R O M A N CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE DIOCESE OF H O U M A -T H IB O D A U X ; SAM G. JACOBS, Reverend, Bishop of the H o u m a -T h ib o d a u x Diocese of the Catholic Church; SISTER IMMACULOTTA P A I S A N T , Superintendent of Catholic Schools for Houma-Thibodaux Diocese o f the Catholic Church; DAVID BOUDREAUX, President of Edward Douglas W h it e High School; MYRA LUFT, Principal of Edward Douglas White High S c h o o l; MICHELLE CHIASSON, Assistant Principal for Admission, Edward D o u g la s White High School; GWEN BUET, Dean of Students, Edward D o u g la s White High School, Defendants ­ Appellees

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Louisiana U S D C No. 2:08-CV-4841

B e fo r e GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-30003

Document: 00511160319

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/30/2010

No. 10-30003 P la in t iffs -A p p e lla n t s Hannah Rae Jegart and her mother, Deneen T. S p in e lla (together, "Jegart") appeal the district court's grant of summary ju d g m e n t against them in their racial discrimination suit against the Catholic D io c e s e of Houma-Thibodaux, its administrators, and various administrators a n d staff of Edward Douglas White High School (together, "Appellees"). We a ffir m . FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS I n January 2008, Hannah Rae Jegart, a black senior at Edward Douglas W h it e High School, which is administered by the Diocese of Houma-Thibodaux, w a s enrolled in an Apologetics class that required weekly reports on various is s u e s in theology and Catholic doctrine. During this period, Jegart created a s e r ie s of sites on the social networking web site Facebook. These sites requested t h a t former students in the Apologetics course exchange answers and sources for t h e class with present students. The sites included mocking references to Bishop S a m Jacobs, who created the course and whose picture appeared on Jegart's site, a n d a number of profane and mocking comments about the class, the school, and v a r io u s administrators and teachers. These sites violated several provisions of t h e school handbook. After discovering the sites, administrators at the school d e c id e d to issue varying suspensions to students who were involved. Students w h o merely joined without commenting received a one-day suspension, while t h o s e who commented received an intermediate suspension. Jegart, who created a n d administered the sites, received a nine-day suspension. She subsequently w it h d r e w from the school and filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, claiming r a c ia l discrimination because she received a punishment that she alleged was e x c e s s iv e as compared to other, non-minority students. T h e district court's scheduling order required motions for summary ju d g m e n t to be filed so as to be heard before October 1, 2009. Appellees filed a m o t ion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Jegart's claims on September 2

Case: 10-30003

Document: 00511160319

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/30/2010

No. 10-30003 1 4 , 2009, and set the matter for hearing on September 30, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. P u r s u a n t to local rules, Jegart's opposition was to be filed no later than the e ig h t h calendar day before the noticed hearing. No opposition was filed. Rather, fiv e days before the hearing date, plaintiffs filed an opposed motion to continue t h e hearing until October 28, 2009. The district court granted the motion and r e s e t the hearing for the requested date, making Jegart's opposition due on O c t o b e r 20. On that date, the parties met with the district judge to confect a pret r ia l order. At the conference, the district court granted Jegart's unopposed m o t io n for a one day extension to file her opposition and also continued the pret r ia l conference until October 28. Jegart then again failed to file her opposition t h e next day. The district court granted the motion for summary judgment as u n o p p o s e d on October 22, 2009. The order gave Jegart thirty days to file a m o t io n to reconsider, along with her opposition to the motion for summary ju d g m e n t , but warned that the court might assess the costs of defending the m o t i o n against her. Jegart filed the motion to reconsider along with her o p p o s it io n . The court denied the motion to reconsider but declined to assess costs against Jegart, who timely filed a notice of appeal. S T A N D A R D OF REVIEW W e review "a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying t h e same legal standards as the district court." Tradewinds Envtl. Restoration, I n c . v. St. Tammany Park, LLC, 578 F.3d 255, 258 (5th Cir. 2009) (quotation o m it t e d ). "[T]he evidence and inferences from the summary judgment record are v ie w e d in the light most favorable to the nonmovant." Id. (quotation omitted). D IS C U S S IO N W h e n a party does not file an opposition to a motion for summary ju d g m e n t , the district court is permitted to consider the facts listed in support o f the motion as undisputed and grant summary judgment if they show that the m o v a n t is entitled to judgment in his favor. See Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 3

Case: 10-30003

Document: 00511160319

Page: 4

Date Filed: 06/30/2010

No. 10-30003 F .2 d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1988). The unopposed motion for summary judgment in t h is case listed several facts in support of the motion, including: Jegart created a n d administered the sites; she knew they were in violation of the school's p o lic ie s ; the lengths of the punishments given to specific students were d e t e r m in e d by their level of involvement; and Jegart received the most serious p u n is h m e n t because she created and administered the sites and therefore was m o s t responsible for them. These undisputed facts establish that the school had a valid, non-discriminatory reason for its actions, and Jegart offered no facts to s u g g e s t that this reason was a pretext for discrimination. See Enplanar, Inc. v. M a r s h , 11 F.3d 1284, 1294 (5th Cir. 1994). Jegart also argues that the district court applied an incorrect standard in r e v i e w in g her motion for reconsideration, and should have considered the s u m m a r y judgment motion on the merits in light of Jegart's opposition, which w a s filed along with the motion to reconsider. The district court applied to this m o t io n the standard we articulated in Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 4 7 3 , 477-78 (5th Cir. 2004). This was the correct standard. C O N C L U S IO N C o n s id e r in g the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is A F F IR M E D .

4