239 So. 3d 988
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Shameka Brown, a pregnant employee, was terminated by The Blood Center (TBC) after an on‑shift emergency when she left/attempted to leave work and/or called supervisors under circumstances TBC characterized as violating its absenteeism/tardiness and dress‑code policies.
- TBC handbook required employees to call a manager at least one hour before a shift if not reporting or if leaving early; failure to notify or leaving without authorization could lead to immediate termination. TBC also required clean/appropriate uniforms and listed disregard of dress code as grounds for immediate dismissal.
- Brown sued under La. R.S. 23:342 (pregnancy discrimination) and separately raised a disability discrimination claim; the district court granted summary judgment for TBC on both theories.
- Judge Lobrano concurred in affirming summary judgment on the disability claim but dissented as to the pregnancy claim, arguing genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.
- Lobrano emphasized disputed factual issues: Brown’s testimony that other employees who failed to notify supervisors were not terminated, potential inconsistencies between TBC policies (e.g., inability to leave to remedy a soiled uniform versus immediate termination for a soiled uniform), and the need for credibility determinations under the McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on pregnancy discrimination under La. R.S. 23:342 | Brown: she was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees; her testimony identifies at least one employee not terminated for failing to notify | TBC: identified employees are not similarly situated and offered nondiscriminatory reason for termination (policy violations) | Lobrano: would reverse summary judgment on pregnancy claim—genuine issues of material fact exist and case should proceed to trial |
| Whether Brown satisfied prima facie disparate‑treatment element (similarly situated comparators) | Brown: testimony that others were not terminated creates a genuine dispute | TBC: comparators are not nearly identical; differences justify disparate outcomes | Lobrano: comparator similarity is a factual question unsuited for summary judgment; testimony suffices to create disputed fact |
| Whether TBC's stated nondiscriminatory reason is pretext | Brown: contradictions in TBC policies and evidence of disparate treatment undermine TBC’s justification | TBC: articulated legitimate policy violations justifying termination | Lobrano: conflicts in policies and likelihood of disparate treatment weaken employer’s justification and raise credibility issues requiring trial |
| Whether self‑serving testimony can defeat summary judgment | Brown: her deposition testimony and identification of comparators should create material fact disputes | TBC: Brown’s testimony is self‑serving and uncorroborated, so insufficient | Lobrano: self‑serving deposition testimony may be sufficient where not adequately countered and TBC had opportunity to cross‑examine; summary judgment was improper here |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishing burden‑shifting framework for disparate‑treatment claims)
- Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338 (same‑treatment/comparator analysis; factual disputes on comparators defeat summary judgment)
- Perez v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice, 395 F.3d 206 (Fifth Circuit: similarly situated comparators must be nearly identical)
- Fairchild v. All Am. Check Cashing, Inc., 815 F.3d 959 (applying McDonnell Douglas in pregnancy discrimination context)
- Weddborn v. Doe, 194 So.3d 80 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (self‑serving affidavits/depositions can create genuine issues of material fact)
- Suire v. LCS Corr. Servs., Inc., 930 So.2d 221 (La. App. 3d Cir.) (La. R.S. 23:342 claims analyzed using Title VII framework)
- Istre v. Meche, 931 So.2d 361 (La. 2006) (reasonableness and factual determinations inappropriate for summary judgment)
- Schwarzenberger v. Louisiana State Univ. Health Scis. Ctr. New Orleans, 226 So.3d 1200 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (discounting uncorroborated self‑serving testimony in contract loss‑of‑profits context)
- Motton v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 900 So.2d 901 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (applying McDonnell Douglas to sex discrimination claim)