Landon v. The West Baton Rouge Council et al

Filing 27

RULING: The 24 Motion to Alter or Amend Ruling and/or Motion for New Trial and/or Motion for Reconsideration is granted in part. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 11/12/2013. (NLT)

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 TO ALTER RULING,
FOR NEW TRIAL, OR FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Ruling

and/or

Motion

for

New

Trial

and/or

Motion

for

Reconsideration (hereafter, Motion for Reconsideration). Record
document number 24.

The motion is opposed.1
Background

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 are referred to hereafter as “WBRP”), and Philip A.
Padgett,

M.D.,

who

is

the

West

Baton

Rouge

Parish

Coroner

(sometimes referred to in the parties’ memoranda as the “Coroner’s
Office” and referred to hereafter as the “Coroner”).

Plaintiff

alleged claims of discrimination and retaliation under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §621, et seq, and

1

Record document number 25.

“Louisiana’s anti-discrimination laws.”2

Plaintiff alleged that

she was employed by the West Baton Rouge Parish Coroner and was
subject to offensive harassment based on her age beginning in 2007.
Plaintiff alleged that after reporting the illegal conduct she
continued to be subject to a hostile work environment and was
ultimately wrongfully terminated on September 27, 2011.
The Coroner moved for summary judgment, arguing that he did
not satisfy the 20 or more employees requirement under the ADEA and
LEDL.

Plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence to create a

genuine dispute for trial on this threshold issue.

In a ruling

issued on October 4, 2013, the Coroner’s summary judgment motion
was granted (hereafter, Coroner Ruling).3
Defendant WBRP also moved for summary judgment based on the
argument that it is not the plaintiff’s employer, and therefore is
not

subject

to

the

requirements

of

the

ADEA

and

the

LEDL.

Defendant WBRP asserted that the Coroner is not an employee or
agent of WBRP, but rather an elected official under the Louisiana
State Constitution whose office is a state agency which operates
independently of regulation by the local governing authority.
Defendant WBRP also provided evidence to establish that it does not

2

Record document number 1, Complaint, Jurisdiction statement
and ¶ 18.
It is assumed that the plaintiff is relying on the
Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, LSA-R.S. 23:312 (“LEDL”).
3

Record document number 22, Ruling on Motion for Summary
Judgment.
2

exercise the requisite control over the employees of the Coroner
necessary for WBRP to be held accountable as the plaintiff’s
employer. WBRP argued that even though the Coroner receives annual
appropriations from WBRP to pay his employees and other necessary
expenses, it is not their employer under the ADEA and the LEDL.
Plaintiff opposed the motion.

Plaintiff essentially argued

that her affidavit and supporting documents and other evidence
establish

that

her

employee

compensation

administered and controlled by WBRP.

and

benefits

are

Therefore, plaintiff argued,

this fiscal relationship between WBRP and the Coroner shows that
there is a genuine dispute for trial on the issue of whether WBRP
is her employer or joint employer within the meaning of the ADEA
and the LEDL.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Coroner Ruling
was filed the same day she filed her opposition to WBRP’s summary
judgment motion.

In her Motion for Reconsideration the plaintiff

relied on the materials she filed in her opposition to WBRP’s
summary judgment motion.
Analysis
Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides, in relevant part, as
follows:
... any order or other decision, however designated, that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end
the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be
revised at any time before the entry of a judgment
3

adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights
and liabilities.
Clearly, the Coroner Ruling did not adjudicate all of the
plaintiff’s claims against all the parties. Therefore, the Coroner
Ruling may be revised at any time.
Issued contemporaneously with this ruling is the Ruling on
Motion for Summary Judgment as to defendant West Baton Rouge Parish
Council’s Motion for Summary Judgment (hereafter, WBRP Ruling).4
In the WBRP Ruling the court determined that it would not continue
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)
over the plaintiff’s LEDL claim against WBRP, and its motion was
not decided as to that claim.
The court has not determined that WBPR was not the plaintiff’s
joint employer with the Coroner under the LEDL, and by declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction it will not do so.

Therefore,

the earlier finding that the plaintiff has no LEDL claim against
the Coroner as a joint employer with WBRP cannot be maintained.
Having carefully considered the parties’s arguments, as well
as the summary judgment evidence filed by the plaintiff in her
opposition to WBRP’s summary judgment motion, the court is now
convinced that it should also decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s LEDL claim against the Coroner.
At the time the Coroner Ruling was issued, there were still federal

4

Record document number 26.
4

law claims in the case, and so the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction was warranted. Now there are no federal claims. The
reasons for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the plaintiff’s LEDL claim against WBRP are equally applicable to
the plaintiff’s LEDL claim against the Coroner.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Ruling
and/or Motion for New Trial and/or Motion for Reconsideration is
granted, in part. The October 4, 2013 Ruling on Motion for Summary
Judgment (the Coroner Ruling) is hereby amended to grant the Motion
for Summary Judgment filed by Philip A. Padget, M.D., in part, as
to the plaintiff’s claim against him under the ADEA.

That claim

will be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c),
the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
plaintiff’s state law claim under LSA-R.S. 23:312 against defendant
Padgett.

That claim will be dismissed without prejudice to the

plaintiff re-filing her claim in state court as provided by 28
U.S.C. § 1367(d).
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 12, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5