207 So. 3d 507
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Jon Miguel, a GEICO special investigator and identical twin of insured Juan Miguel, was terminated after accessing GEICO public-records databases during investigation of Juan’s UM claim. Jon sued GEICO and employees for race discrimination under La. R.S. 23:332(A)(1) and for defamation.
- La. R.S. 23:303(C) requires written notice to the alleged discriminator at least 30 days before filing suit, detailing the alleged discrimination; failure to comply can render a claim premature.
- Jon sent a written notice received by GEICO’s HR director on February 26, 2014 and filed his Petition for Damages on March 25, 2014 — 28 days later — because the one-year prescriptive period was nearing expiration.
- Defendants raised exceptions of prematurity (and want of judicial demand), arguing Jon failed to give the statutorily required 30 days’ written notice and that the notice lacked specificity.
- On remand after a writ, the trial court found Jon failed to comply with the 30-day notice requirement and dismissed his discrimination claim with prejudice; the defamation claim remained pending.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the literal 30-day notice requirement is mandatory and a failure to comply is fatal to the LEDL claim when no EEOC charge was filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing suit before the 30-day notice period renders the LEDL claim premature | Jon: waiting two more days would be futile because the one-year prescriptive period was expiring | Defs: La. R.S. 23:303(C) requires 30 days’ written notice before suit; failure is fatal unless an EEOC charge was filed | Held: Failure to provide 30 days’ notice rendered the claim premature; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Jon's written notice met the statute’s specificity requirement | Jon: notice sufficiently detailed alleged racial discrimination | Defs: notice lacked required specificity to detail the alleged acts | Held: Court did not need to reach specificity because 30-day failure was dispositive (trial also found notice insufficient) |
Key Cases Cited
- Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, 79 So.3d 987 (La. 2011) (statutory-interpretation principle that clear statutes must be applied as written)
- Simpson-Williams v. Andignac, 902 So.2d 385 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005) (failure to comply with La. R.S. 23:303(C) renders discrimination claim premature)
- Gales v. Whole Food Co., 165 So.3d 1052 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (standard of review for dilatory exceptions cited)
- Jefferson Door Co. v. Cragmar Construction, 81 So.3d 1001 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (procedural standard guidance cited)
- Dunn v. Nextel South Corp., 207 F. Supp. 2d 523 (M.D. La. 2002) (dismissal for failure to allege compliance with La. R.S. 23:303(C))