89 So. 3d 380
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Hare was hired by Paleo Data in 1989 and became office manager by 2008, under Waterman's supervision as president.
- The relationship between Hare and Waterman was sporadically contentious, though Waterman regularly granted Hare raises, bonuses, and growth opportunities.
- On June 12, 2008, a confrontation occurred after Hare sent an obituary notification; Waterman demanded an email she allegedly failed to send, leading to a heated exchange and Waterman touching Hare.
- Hare left the office and did not return; she filed suit on January 23, 2009 asserting gender discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and tort claims against Paleo Data and Waterman.
- The trial court dismissed with prejudice all claims against Paleo Data after summary judgment in Paleo Data's favor and denied Waterman’s motion in part; Hare appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding no reversible error in granting summary judgment on hostile environment/constructive discharge and abandoned the gender discrimination issue; Paleo Data was dismissed with prejudice as a party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hare proved a hostile work environment under 23:332 | Hare claims Waterman created a pervasive, discriminatory environment. | Waterman’s conduct was not discriminatory in intent or pervasive. | Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine issue on discriminatory animus. |
| Whether Hare proved constructive discharge based on gender discrimination | Harassment rendered working conditions intolerable, forcing resignation. | No evidence of intolerable conditions; hostile environment not proven. | Constructive discharge claim affirmed as dismissed due to failure to prove hostile environment. |
| Whether the gender discrimination claim was properly dismissed | Claim had merit based on record evidence. | Claim not properly briefed and thus abandoned. | Abandoned; dismissed without consideration on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. Southern University and Agric. and Mech. College, 877 So.2d 1194 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004) (elements of hostile environment; notice not required when supervisor involved)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2004) (constructive discharge standard and requirement of severe or pervasive conduct)
- Plummer v. Marriott Corp., 654 So.2d 843 (La. 1995) (constructive discharge requires greater severity/pervasiveness than hostile environment)
- Sears v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., 943 So.2d 1219 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2006) (analysis of hostile environment factors and impact on employment)
- Francois v. Acadiana Sec. Plus, Inc., 976 So.2d 809 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2008) (constructive discharge requires aggravating discriminatory treatment; hostility prerequisite)
- King v. Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., 844 So.2d 1012 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2003) (intolerable working conditions standard for constructive discharge)