Durham vs. AMIKIDS Baton Rouge, Inc. et al

Filing 53

RULING AND ORDER granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment and denying 33 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's final claim against Defendant AMIKidsBR is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 3/27/2020. (SWE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MELISSA DURHAM

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
AMIKIDS, INC., ET AL.

NO: 18-00559-BAJ-EWD

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court are the Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 17, 33)
filed by Plaintiff and Defendant AMIKids Baton Rouge, Inc. For the reasons stated
herein, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND
This is a disability-discrimination case. Plaintiff is a former teacher and

employee of Defendants. Plaintiff originally filed her complaint in Nineteenth
Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish against Defendants AMIKids Inc.
and AMIKids Baton Rouge Inc. (“AMIKidsBR”)1 for the alleged violation of her rights
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, and the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law. Defendants removed this
suit to federal court on May 17, 2018, and both Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss
(Docs. 2, 3). The Court issued a Ruling and Order (Doc. 14) granting the motion in

AMIKids Inc. is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping at-risk youth. The national office for
AMIKids is located in Tampa, Florida, and AMIKids Baton Rouge, Inc. is a branch of the organization
that is located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
1

1

part, dismissing all claims against Defendant AMIKids, Inc. with prejudice. However,
the Court denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Louisiana Employment
Discrimination Law claim against Defendant AMIKidsBR. In the Ruling and Order,
the Court permitted additional discovery to proceed on the issue of whether
Defendant AMIKids Baton Rouge, Inc. employed twenty or more employees during
2017 and 2018. (Id.)
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Rule 56, “[t]he [C]ourt shall grant summary judgment if the

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In determining
whether the movant is entitled to summary judgment, the Court views the facts in
the light most favorable to the non-movant and draws all reasonable inferences in
the non-movant's favor. Coleman v. Houston Independent School Dist, 113 F.3d 528,
533 (5th Cir. 1997).
After a proper motion for summary judgment is made, the non-movant must
set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). At this stage, the Court does not evaluate the
credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, or resolve factual disputes. Int'l
Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502
U.S. 1059 (1992). However, if the evidence in the record is such that a reasonable
jury, drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party, could arrive at a verdict
in that party's favor, the motion for summary judgment must be denied. Int'l

2

Shortstop, Inc., 939 F.2d at 1263.
On the other hand, the non-movant's burden is not satisfied by some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, or by conclusory allegations,
unsubstantiated assertions, or a mere scintilla of evidence. Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is appropriate if the nonmovant “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to that party's case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). In
other words, summary judgment will be appropriate only “if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
affidavits if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sherman v. Hallbauer,
455 F.2d 1236, 1241 (5th Cir. 1972).
III.

DISCUSSION
In its motion, Defendant AMIKidsBR argues entitlement to summary

judgment on the remaining claim because the Louisiana Employment Discrimination
Law (“LEDL”) is inapplicable, as it did not employ the requisite number of employees
in 2017 and 2018. Plaintiff argues in her motion that Defendant did employ the
requisite number of employees for the LEDL to apply. The provisions of the LEDL,
La R.S. 32:302, et seq., “shall apply only to an employer who employs 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.” La R.S. 23:302(2). See Bell v.
Thornburg, 743 F.3d 84, 91 (5th Cir. 2014).

3

To satisfy the discovery request regarding the number of employees, Defendant
AMIKidsBR submitted copies of official quarterly payroll reports and an IRS Form
941.(See Doc. 17, Exhibit C).2 The Form 941 reflects the total “ number of employees
who received wages, tips, or other compensation for the pay period.” (See Part 1 of
Form 941). Naturally, the Form 941 reports the exact number of employees on an
employee’s payroll records. Defendant asserts that these documents show that it
never had twenty or more employees in Louisiana working for twenty or more
calendar weeks in 2017 or in 2018. Plaintiff did not submit any evidence showing that
twenty or more employees worked for Defendant AMIKidsBR. Plaintiff only provided
unsubstantiated allegations that at least twenty employees worked for Defendant
AMIKidsBR in those years.
Louisiana courts routinely look to Title VII cases to interpret the LEDL
because they are “substantively similar.” See La Day v. Catalyst Technology, Inc., 302
F.3d 474, 477 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus, reliance on the “payroll method” used in Title VII
cases to determine the number of employees is applicable here. Mahl v. Nokia, Inc.,
No. CV 05-5243, 2006 WL 8456801, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 18, 2006), aff'd, 212 F. App'x
279 (5th Cir. 2006). In Mahl, the court held that an affidavit by the defendant’s Senior
Legal Counsel attesting to the number of employees based on her review all of payroll
records was unequivocal evidence meeting the standard required for entry of
summary judgment. The court recognized that this “payroll method” was sufficient

According to the official website of the Internal Revenue Service, a Form 941 is an employer’s
quarterly federal tax return.

2

4

in determining that the defendant did not employee the requisite number of
employees for the provisions of the LEDL to be applicable to the case. Id. at 3-4. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision, holding
that Plaintiff’s affidavit stating that “to her knowledge Defendant employed the
requisite number of employees” was insufficient to present a genuine issue of
material fact against the defendant’s affidavit based on payroll records. Mahl v.
Nokia, 212 Fed.Appx. 279, 280 (5th Cir. 2006).
Defendant AMIKidsBR’s 2018 payroll records show nineteen employees in the
first quarter, eighteen employees in the second quarter, eleven employees in the third
quarter, and seven employees in the fourth quarter. (See Doc. 17, Exhibit B).
Defendant AMIKidsBR did not submit payroll records for 2017; however, it did
provide the IRS Form 941, filed under penalty of perjury, reflecting the same
information regarding the number of employees as the payroll records. The IRS Form
941 for first quarter of 2017 shows sixteen total employees; the second quarter shows
fourteen employees; the third quarter shows seventeen employees, and the fourth
quarter shows sixteen employees. Defendant AMIKidsBR also provided the IRS Form
941 for all quarters of 2018, which reflect the same numbers of employees in each
quarter as the payroll records for 2018. (See Doc. 17, Exhibit D).
The Court finds that Defendant AMIKidsBR’s payroll reports and Form 941
are sufficient evidence to prove that the number of its employees did not exceed
twenty in 2017 and 2018. Because Plaintiff did not present any evidence to show that
Defendant employed twenty or more employees, Plaintiff has failed to present a
5

genuine of material fact as to whether Defendant AMIKidsBR employed the requisite
number of employees. Thus, the Court must conclude that the LEDL is inapplicable
to this matter, and that Plaintiff’s final claim must be dismissed.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17)

is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s final claim against Defendant
AMIKidsBR is DISMISSED.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 27th day of March, 2020.

_____________________________________
JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

6