Breve v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.
Filing
16
ORDER AND REASONS granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment as unopposed. The plaintiff's claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 12/18/2017. (clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CLAUDETTE BREVE
CIVIL ACTION
v.
NO. 16-17783
RITZ CARLTON HOTEL
COMPANY, LLC
SECTION "F"
ORDER AND REASONS
Local Rule 7.5 of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires
that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed eight days prior
to the noticed submission date.
No memoranda in opposition to the
Ritz Carlton Hotel Company, LLC’s motion for summary judgment,
noticed for submission on December 20, 2017, has been submitted.
Accordingly, because the motion is unopposed, and further, it
appears to the Court that the motion has merit, 1 IT IS ORDERED:
1
Claudette Breve was employed at the Ritz Carlton in New Orleans
from 2000 until she was terminated in 2012, along with her coworker, Ryan Turnage, for clocking out early. Following her
termination, she sued the Ritz Carlton in this Court under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging discrimination. Judge
Brown dismissed the case without prejudice on August 29, 2013. Mr.
Turnage did not make a claim. Sometime around May, 2016, a lobby
concierge position became available. The hotel management
allegedly reached out to Mr. Turnage and encouraged him to apply,
which he did. The Ritz offered Mr. Turnage the position, but he
turned it down. On June 3, 2016, the Ritz Carlton posted the
position publically and opened it to all applicants. Ms. Breve
applied on June 27, 2016, and was notified on July 2, 2016 that
the position was no longer open and that the Ritz Carlton would
not move forward with her candidacy. In response, Ms. Breve filed
a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission on September 16, 2016 against the defendant. She then
1
filed this suit on December 23, 2016, alleging that the defendant
violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §
621, et seq. and the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, LA.
STAT. § 23:301, et seq. Ms. Breve claims that by failing to consider
her application, the defendant is retaliating against her for her
prior discrimination claim. She suggests that Mr. Turnage was
offered the position, even though he was terminated for the same
reason as Ms. Breve, because he did not file a discrimination
claim.
In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the
plaintiff must prove: “(1) that she engaged in a statutorily
protected activity; (2) that she experienced an adverse employment
action following the protected activity; and (3) that a causal
link exists between the protected activity and the adverse
employment action.” Nowlin v. Resolution Trust Corp., 33 F.3d 498,
507 (5th Cir. 1994); Evans v. City of Houston, 246 F.3d 344, 349,
351 (5th Cir. 2001)(noting that “[c]laims of racial discrimination
under Title VII, age discrimination under the ADEA, and racial and
age discrimination under the TCHRA are all evaluated within the
same analytical framework”). The Supreme Court has held that to
establish the causation requirement, the plaintiff must prove
“that the unlawful retaliation would not have occurred in the
absence of the alleged wrongful action or actions of the employer.”
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Str. v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 2533.
Because the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law is “identical”
to the ADEA, “Louisiana courts have traditionally looked to federal
case law for guidance.” LaBove v. Raftery, 00-1394, 00-1423 (La.
11/28/01); 802 So.2d 566, 573; see also King v. Phelps Dunbar,
LLP, 98-1805 (La. 6/4/99); 743 So.2d 181, 187; Barbe v. A.A. Harmon
& Co., 94-2423, 94-2424 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/7/98); 705 So.3d 1210,
1215.
The defendant contends that it was no longer considering
applications by the time Ms. Breve submitted her application. The
defendant submitted affidavits stating that the hiring decision
was made by the Assistant Director of Human Resources and the Ritz
Carlton Club Manager, in consultation with the Human Resources
Manager. According to those individuals, the only applications
reviewed were the eight applications submitted by June 18, 2016,
a week and a half before Mr. Breve’s submission. The individuals
were not aware that Ms. Breve had even applied until she filed her
EEOC claim on September 16, 2017. Ms. Breve stated in a deposition
with the defendant that she had no evidence to rebut any of these
findings. Ms. Breve cannot meet her burden to prove that the
defendant’s would have considered her application had it not
2
that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED
as unopposed. The plaintiff’s claims are hereby dismissed with
prejudice.
New Orleans, Louisiana, December 18, 2017
_____________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
intended to discriminate against her because those responsible for
filling the position did not know she applied. As summary judgment
is proper if the party opposing the motion fails to establish an
essential element of his case, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322-23 (1986), the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
granted. See also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56 (instructing that summary
judgment is proper if the record discloses no genuine dispute as
to any material fact such that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law); Donaghey v. Ocean Drilling &
Exploration Co., 974 F.2d 646, 649 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that
the non-moving party must come forward with competent evidence,
such as affidavits or depositions, to buttress his claims); Antoine
v. First Student, Inc., 713 F.3d 824, 830 (5th Cir. 2013) (finding
that although the Court must "resolve factual controversies in
favor of the nonmoving party," it must do so "only where there is
an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted
evidence of contradictory facts”).
3
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?