Landon v. The West Baton Rouge Council et al

Filing 22

RULING granting 13 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant Philip A. Padgett, M.D. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 10/4/2013. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRENDA LANDON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-261-SCR
PHILIP A. PADGETT, M.D., ET AL.
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the court is the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1), Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, filed by defendant
Philip A. Padgett, M.D., West Baton Rouge Parish Coroner.
document number 13.
court

order

judgment.1

to

a

Record

This motion was subsequently converted by the
Rule

56,

Fed.R.Civ.P.,

motion

for

summary

The motion is opposed.2

Plaintiff Brenda Landon filed a Complaint against defendants
the West Baton Rouge Parish Council and the Parish of West Baton
Rouge (which are considered as the same entity for the purpose of
this case), and Philip A. Padgett, M.D., who is the West Baton
Rouge

Parish

Coroner

(sometimes

referred

memoranda as the “Coroner’s Office”).

to

in

the

parties’

Plaintiff alleged claims of

discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §621, et seq, and “Louisiana’s

1

Record document number 20.

2

Record document number 19.

anti-discrimination

laws.”3

Plaintiff

alleged

that

she

was

employed with the West Baton Rouge Parish Coroner’s Office in June
2005 and beginning in 2007 was subject to offensive remarks and
harassment

based

on

her

age.

Plaintiff

alleged

that

after

reporting the illegal conduct she continued to be subject to a
hostile work environment and was wrongfully terminated on September
27, 2011.
Defendant Padgett moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims and
argued that he was not an “employer” subject to the requirements of
the ADEA and state law because he employed less than 20 employees
at the time of the alleged events.

In her opposition, the

plaintiff essentially argued that the economic ties between the
defendants establish that they are the plaintiff’s employer for the
purposes of the ADEA and state law.
Under the ADEA the term “employer” is defined as follows:
The term “employer” means a person engaged in an
industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more
employees for each working day in each of twenty or more
calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year:
Provided, That prior to June 30, 1968, employers having
fewer than fifty employees shall not be considered
employers. The term also means (1) any agent of such a
person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a
State and any agency or instrumentality of a State or a
political subdivision of a State, and any interstate
agency, but such term does not include the United States
or a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the
United States.
3

Record document number 1, Complaint, Jurisdiction statement
and ¶ 18. Defendant assumed that the plaintiff is relying on the
Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, LSA-R.S. 23:301, et seq.
(“LEDL”), and this ruling makes the same assumption.
2

29 U.S.C. § 630(b).
The

definition

of

an

“employer”

under

the

LEDL

is

substantially the same:
“Employer” means a person, association, legal or
commercial entity, the state, or any state agency, board
commission, or political subdivision of the state
receiving services from an employee and, in return,
giving compensation of any kind to an employee.
The
provisions of this Chapter shall apply only to an
employer who employees twenty or more employees within
this state for each working day in each of twenty or more
calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
LSA-R.S. 23:302(2).
Defendant Padgett provided evidence showing that only 13
employees actively provided services for the Coroner’s Office
during the relevant time period.4

Plaintiff did not dispute the

fact that the Coroner’s Office employed less than 20 employees.
Plaintiff’s opposition appears to focus the economic ties between
the West Baton Rouge Parish Council/Parish of West Baton Rouge and
the Coroner’s Office, whether either of these defendants exercised
control over the Coroner’s Office, and whether defendant Padgett
acted as an agent for these entities.
Plaintiff’s arguments are factually unsupported.

4

There is no

Record document number 13-3, Affidavit of Yancy Guerin. The
affidavit stated that there were six non-active death investigators
on record with the Coroner’s Office, but they were not available
for duty during the relevant time period. Even if these non-active
investigators were considered employees of the Coroner’s Office for
purposes of the ADEA and the LEDL, the total number of employees
would still be less than 20, and thus they not affect defendant
Padgett’s status as an employer.
3

summary judgment evidence sufficient to create a genuinely disputed
issue of material fact as to whether defendant Padgett acted as an
agent of defendant West Baton Rouge Parish Council/Parish of West
Baton Rouge, either for the purpose of Council/Parish exercising
control over the plaintiff’s employment duties and responsibilities
or for some other employment-related purpose.
Because

defendant

Padgett

demonstrated

that

there

is

no

genuine issue of material fact as to his “employer” status under
the ADEA and the LEDL, specifically that he is not and “employer,”
he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.5

Whether defendant

West Baton Rouge Parish Council/Parish of West Baton Rouge can be
considered the plaintiff’s employer for the purpose of her ADEA or
LEDL claims will be addressed in the ruling on the West Baton Rouge
Parish Council’s Motion for Summary Judgment.6
Accordingly,

the

Motion

for

Summary

Judgment

filed

by

defendant Philip A. Padgett, M.D., the West Baton Rouge Parish
Coroner, is granted.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 4, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Rule 56(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986).
6

Record document number 21.
4