Balakrishnan v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College, 452 F. App'x 495

Balakrishnan, a medical school graduate and resident, worked through her fourth year at LSU Medical Center and lied about passing Step 3.
LSU’s progression committee declined to certify her completion due to the Step 3 lie and failure to correct it.
She filed multiple lawsuits alleging discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and a state defamation claim; federal litigation was dismissed without prejudice.
The district court granted LSU summary judgment on the fair-discrimination and retaliation claims in 2010; Balakrishnan sought Rule 59 relief to amend to add a §1983 claim, which the court denied.
Balakrishnan appealed, challenging the district court’s rulings on discrimination, retaliation, and the Rule 59 denial.
LSU argued that the §1981 claim is not available against individuals under color of state law and that the nondiscriminatory reasons for denial were legitimate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Balakrishnan can prove discrimination under §1981/§1983.	Balakrishnan alleges race/national-origin bias affected certification.	LSU asserts §1981 is not available against individuals; remaining claim rests on a nondiscriminatory reason.	No triable issue; summary judgment affirmed.
Whether Balakrishnan showed pretext to defeat summary judgment.	Nondiscriminatory reasons mask race-based animus.	Nondiscriminatory rationale supported by record; no evidence of pretext.	No evidence of pretext; denial upheld.
Whether Balakrishnan could amend to add a §1983 claim; denial of Rule 59(e) was proper.	Rule 59(e) should allow amendment after judgment.	Late, new theory; inappropriate via Rule 59(e).	District court did not abuse discretion; amendment denied.
Whether LSU retaliated against Balakrishnan for EEOC activity.	Actions like withholding files and erroneous reporting were retaliatory.	Actions were non-retaliatory, based on policy and timing; no causal link shown.	No retaliation; summary judgment affirmed.

Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (1989) (limits of §1981 against state actors; pretext framework applicable)
Oden v. Oktibbeha Cnty., Miss., 246 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2001) (Congressional amendments to §1981 did not overrule Jett)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext framework for disparate treatment claims)
Manning v. Chevron Chem. Co., 332 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 2003) (pretext and showing of discriminatory motive)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (tangible adversity standard in retaliation)
Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores (No. 471), 891 F.2d 1177 (5th Cir. 1990) (similarly situated employees requirement)
Lee v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (nearly identical circumstances test for similarly situated employees)
Okoye v. Univ. of Tex. Hous. Health Sci. Ctr., 245 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2001) (comparator evidence in discrimination)
Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (Rule 59(e) standards and amendment of complaints)
Pioneer Natural Res. USA, Inc. v. Paper, Allied Indus. & Energy Workers Int’l Union Local 4-487, 328 F.3d 818 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard for reviewing Rule 59 motions)
Grimes v. Texas Dep’t of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 102 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 1996) (evidence on mishandling paperwork insufficient for liability)