Fontenot v. Bd Supr LA State Univ

Case: 22-30483 Document: 00516812864 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
July 7, 2023
No. 22-30483 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Tellin Fontenot,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:20-CV-8
______________________________
Before Elrod, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Plaintiff Fontenot worked in admissions for a satellite branch of
Louisiana State University. After being passed over for several promotions
and being transferred to another department, Fontenot filed a discrimination
charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She then sued
the University under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–34, and a state-law analogue, the Louisiana Age
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30483 Document: 00516812864 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
No. 22-30483
Discrimination in Employment Act (LADEA), La. Stat. Ann. § 23:311(1999). Because all of Fontenot’s claims are either abandoned or prematurely
brought, we AFFIRM the district court’s granting of summary judgment for
LSU.
I
Fontenot began working in the Division of Admissions and Recruiting
at LSU when she was 49 years old. She applied for several promotions but
did not receive them. About a year into her employment, Fontenot’s
recruiting role was converted to half-time. This caused her to spend the
other half of her time at the University Registrar’s Office. One year later, her
admissions position was eliminated entirely, due to changing University
recruitment strategies. Fontenot was transferred to a position with identical
title, pay, and benefits in the Division of Student Engagement.
Dissatisfied with this, Fontenot filed a charge of discrimination with
the EEOC and resigned several months later. In her EEOC charge,
Fontenot checked the boxes for age and race discrimination. She did not
check the boxes for retaliation or any other kind of unlawful treatment. The
EEOC did not make a determination as to whether any statutes were
violated, but it issued Fontenot a right-to-sue letter. Fontenot then filed a
petition for damages in Louisiana state court, alleging discrimination based
on age (but not race).
LSU removed the case to federal court and requested summary
judgment on all claims. The district court granted that motion, dismissing
Fontenot’s federal ADEA claims with prejudice and dismissing Fontenot’s
state-law LADEA claims without prejudice. Fontenot timely appealed.
2
Case: 22-30483 Document: 00516812864 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
No. 22-30483
II
This court reviews “grants of summary judgment de novo, applying
the same standard as the district court.” In re La. Crawfish Producers, 852
F.3d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 2022). “The court 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).
“When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, we are required to review
all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Exelon
Wind 1, L.L.C. v. Nelson, 766 F.3d 380, 394 (5th Cir. 2014).
There are no genuine factual disputes because under the Middle
District of Louisiana’s local rules, Fontenot admitted to LSU’s statement of
undisputed facts. See M.D. La. LR 56(f).
III
A
“A plaintiff abandons claims when [she] fails to address the claims or
oppose a motion challenging those claims.” Terry Black’s Barbeque, L.L.C.
v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 22 F.4th 450, 459 (5th Cir. 2022). In opposing
summary judgment, Fontenot did not respond to LSU’s defenses against her
federal ADEA claims or state LADEA failure-to-promote claim, so the
district court held that those were abandoned. On appeal, Fontenot does not
challenge the district court’s dismissal of those abandoned claims.
Therefore, Fontenot’s only remaining claims are for retaliation and
constructive discharge, both brought under the LADEA.
B
Before suing for retaliation and constructive discharge under the
LADEA, Fontenot was required to provide LSU with 30 days’ written
notice. La. Stat. Ann. § 23:303(C) (2008). She did not do this.
3
Case: 22-30483 Document: 00516812864 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
No. 22-30483
“Louisiana state and federal courts applying Louisiana law have held
the filing of an EEOC charge of discrimination satisfies” Louisiana’s notice
requirement. Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., 767 F. Supp. 2d 678, 700 (W.D.
La. 2011) (collecting cases). But they have held that such notice is limited
“to the alleged discrimination detailed in the EEOC charge.” Id. To
determine whether an EEOC charge provides sufficient notice under section
23:303, Louisiana courts analogize to the exhaustion of administrative
remedies in federal employment-discrimination cases. King v. Phelps Dunbar,
L.L.P., 743 So. 2d 181, 187 (La. 1999). And in that context, we have held that
discrimination claims are distinct from retaliation or constructive discharge
claims, so the allegation of one in an EEOC charge does not exhaust a
plaintiff’s remedies as to the other. See Randel v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 157 F.3d
392, 395 (5th Cir. 1998).
The question before us, then, is whether Fontenot’s EEOC charge
put LSU on notice of Fontenot’s intention to sue for retaliation and
constructive discharge. The first hurdle is that Fontenot did not check either
the “retaliation” or “other” boxes on the EEOC charging form. This
procedural formality is not fatal, however, so long as the written portion of
the charge could have put LSU on notice. See Clark v. Auger Servs., Inc., 443
F. Supp. 3d 685, 708 (M.D. La. 2020). The entirety of the written portion of
Fontenot’s EEOC charge is as follows:
I began my employment with Louisiana State University of
Alexandria on March 21, 2016, most recently as an Enrollment
Specialist, earning $32,000 per year. On July 21, 2017 I applied
for a promotion as Senior Associate Director of Admissions
and Recruiting. On July 25, 2017, I was called for a phone
interview. I was not selected for promotion and I feel the
questions asked of me were geared to me not getting the job.
Ms. Kateline Nichols, WF, was hired. She has less
qualifications tha[n] I do. Previously I had applied for several
4
Case: 22-30483 Document: 00516812864 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
No. 22-30483
promotions and I had not been selected either. The person
hired are younger, white employees who have less
qualifications than I do.
On March 12, 2018, I was told that my job would be eliminated
and that I would need to move into another Department. I was
told this by my Supervisor, Shelley Gill, WF, and Amond
Hammond, Interim Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs. If I
did not accept the transfer I would not have a job. I was to be
the Student Engagement Retention Specialist. On March 13,
2018, I met with Mr. Moore, BM, who was the Vice Chancellor
of Student Engagement. Mr. Moore told me if he had to
advertise the job, he would not select me. Ms. Abbey Baine,
WF, 30’s, and Mr. Moore would write out my new job
description. Ms. Baine, was on my initial hiring committee.
They scheduled me to meet with them again on March 28,
2018. On March 27, 2018, Ms. Gill informed me that they
would be taking my computer and I was to report to my new job
on April 2, 2018. On April 5, 2018, Mr. Moore informed me
that my start date would reflect March 28, 2018.
According to the company, I did not get my promotions
because the committee said they had initially hired someone in
my similarly protected as me. I believe that I have been
discriminated against because of my race (B) in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; and
because of my age (50) in violation of The Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 19676, as amended.
No part of these facts suggests that Fontenot ever lodged a formal or
informal complaint that she could have been retaliated against for making.
Nor do the facts suggest that LSU created such a hostile environment that
Fontenot was forced to resign, as would be required to support a constructive
discharge claim. Fontenot did not introduce any other EEOC documents,
such as an intake questionnaire or investigation notes. And Fontenot
presented no evidence that the EEOC took her charge and investigated for
5
Case: 22-30483 Document: 00516812864 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
No. 22-30483
retaliation. Fontenot also never amended her EEOC charge, nor did she
seek leave to amend her complaint.
Instead of arguing that her EEOC charge itself provided LSU with
notice, Fontenot’s sole argument is that LSU should be charged with
constructive notice of anything that could be included in “the scope of the
EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the
charge of discrimination.” Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455,
466 (5th Cir. 1970). Fontenot’s reliance on that standard is mistaken.
In Sanchez, we allowed an amended complaint to relate back to the
original, even though the amended complaint included new allegations of
national-origin discrimination. But this was only because “the facts alleged
in the complaint, and upon which both charges of sex and national origin
discrimination were based, were identical.” Hornsby v. Conoco, Inc., 777 F.2d
243, 247 (5th Cir. 1985) (discussing Sanchez). Sanchez does not allow a
plaintiff to avoid exhausting administrative remedies when his or her EEOC
charge “raise[s] different theories of recovery” and relies on different facts.
Manning v. Chevron Chem. Co., LLC, 332 F.3d 874, 879 (5th Cir. 2003).
The same conclusion follows for providing notice under section
23:303 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. An EEOC charge cannot provide
an employer with proper notice when the later-filed complaint adds “a new
and independent charge . . . and new and independent facts to support this
claim.” Hornsby, 777 F.2d at 247. “The consistent holdings in the case law
indicate that the statute is to be imposed literally and any deficiency to the
notice requirement is fatal to the plaintiff’s claim.” Miguel v. GEICO Gen.
Ins. Co., 207 So. 3d 507, 511 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
* * *
The district court properly granted summary judgment for LSU.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
6