Antoinette M. Rider VS Kevin Ambeau, Sr., George Grace, Sr. and The City of St. Gabriel
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2007 CA 0681 ANTOINETTE M RIDER VERSUS J KEVIN AMBEAU SR GEORGE GRACE SR AND THE CITY OF ST GABRIEL Judgment Rendered Appealed from the Eighteenth Judicial District December 21 2007 Court In and for the Parish of Iberville Louisiana Trial Court Number 61 130 Honorable James J Best Gail N McKay Baton Rouge LA Judge Attorney Plaintiff for Appellant Antoinette M Rider Frederic T Le Beverly Attorneys for Clercq Defendants A Delaune New Orleans LA Appellees Kevin Ambeau Sr Grace Sr George and The City of St Gabriel BEFORE qllf f CARTER C J frt ce t f fef rt1 Q r h PETTIGREW AND WELCH JJ tt WIIL WELCH J In this dispute arising Rider from her appeals of the termination of the of the trial from this suit and further the and disability follow we and as mandatory In August was a was being hired granted part and a partial the Grace reverse in judgment Sr the in favor of in favor of the by dismissing City Ms Rider and dismissed them judgment summary M Ms For City part the judgment of the trial Rider s that reasons court FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1999 the May Nelson Sr George summary handicap discrimination claims against affirm in Department granted City of St Gabriel I In that court the defendants Kevin Ambeau Sr defendant plaintiff Antoinette employment with the St Gabriel Police Department judgment a out City security hired Ms Rider to work for the St Gabriel Police officer When Ms Rider was originally the Chief of Police for the St Gabriel Police Ms Rider completed several training Peace Officer Standards and 1999 Ms Rider was Training After Department courses POST course hired Patrick promoted to police officer and in including the certification June 2000 she promoted to dispatcher supervisor on June 29 2000 while motor vehicle accident Shortly thereafter Rider injured in was a Rider sustained serious Police a was explained by specialists Dr Kyle intensive physical therapy aimed quickly Dr Dickson Gabriel Police eventually Department on and attended patrol officer Ms result of that accident Ms to work Ms work a F Dickson Ms Rider at as a at the St Gabriel year part of her recovery from her injuries vocational rehabilitation which As injuries that rendered her unable Department for approximately one As working helping Ms s Rider worked with hardening program treating physician Rider retUlTI to work as more cleared Ms Rider to return to work at the St light duty 2 status The St Gabriel Police Department worked with treating physician work On July in Ms Rider regards 23 2001 vocational rehabilitation s Rider to Ms s specialists and her work restrictions and her Ms Rider returned to work and return to assigned ajob was as a desk sergeant As desk sergeant Ms Rider a traffic violations scenes transporting inmates and position until July 3 working 2003 s the Iberville Parish employment was as dispatcher a as part of a days earlier Although on the notice of 1 several new Rider At the time Ms Chief Ambeau was 2003 separation issued terminated police officers six other terminated was Department terminated Department having just assumed the indicated that Ms Rider was tenninated due date that Ms booking Rider remained in this terminated Kevin Ambeau Sr July and warrants jail photographing reduction in force the Chief of Police of the St Gabriel Police office two Ms when the St Gabriel Police employment purportedly Rider to processing during investigations handling reports for other police officers arrested persons her duties entailed s to to Ms a Rider reduction in force the St Gabriel Police Additionally employees of the on by Chief Ambeau the same 81 Gabriel Police on the same Department hired date Ms Rider Department were was also terminated On July defendants the 6 2004 Ms Rider filed a City Chief Ambeau and George Mayor of the City of St Gabriel 1 In her for damages Grace Sr Mayor petition petition Ms nammg Grace as the Rider asserted claims against the defendants for disability discrimination handicap discrimination religious discrimination gender discrimination sexual harassment retaliatory Ms Rider damages inadvertently identifies Mayor Grace as the duly elected However the parties do not dispute and the evidence in the Mayor City record indicates that Mayor Grace is the duly elected Mayor of the City of 81 Gabriel ofthe s petition for ofVille Platte 3 discharge for making a complaint of sexual harassment intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of La R S 23 967 and Ms Rider s constitutional moved for summary judgment seeking 2 In response dismiss all of Ms to At judgment hearing a December 7 on 2006 in favor of Chief Ambeau and claims s trial court Ms Rider Ms Rider disability s remaining discrimination Rider claims s court summary and judgment handicap claims in favor of the remaining summary Ms claims 3 the City s judgment with the City regard statute in 2006 was conformity with signed on January of and due process 2006 the trial court issued written judgment to religious discrimination gender motion for summary judgment with A written of December 7 and 21 against retaliatory discharge intentional infliction On December 21 denying City by dismissing discrimination claims her claims for ie sexual harassment under advisement for judgment granted Mayor Grace dismissing all of emotional distress and violations of the whistleblower 2 the defendants against them and dismissing them from this suit Additionally the granted partial s the trial However the trial court took the motion for summary rulings statute all of the defendants against Rider to due process right the whistleblower reasons regard to the the trial court 31 2007 s and it is The defendants removed Ms Rider s suit to United States district cOUli Although the does not contain any pleadings from the United States district court the defendants asseli and Ms Rider does not dispute that Ms Rider subsequently agreed to record before us dismiss the federal claims that she asserted against remanded to the state district court from which it 3 The City filed an application for the defendants and therefore was supervisory her suit was removed writs with this court in regards to the trial denial of the motion for summary judgment on the remainder of Ms Rider s claims This court granted the writ in part reversed that portion of the trial court s judgment denying court s summary judgment on Ms Rider s claims for religious discrimination sexual and religious harassment retaliatory discharge intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of the whistleblower statute and due process and granted summary judgment in favor of the City dismissing those claims However this court denied the writ with regard to the denial of summary judgment on Ms Rider s claims against the City for gender discrimination on the basis that genuine issues of material fact remained with regard to that claim See Rider v Ambeau 2007 CW 0097 La App 15t Cir 5114 4 07 unpublished writ action from this judgment that Ms Rider has II On appeal them from this violations of ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR in favor Chief Ambeau and suit because they committed clearly established legal rules under La R S 9 2798 1 and 2 in granting the City and dismissing established et seq a Ms Rider prima facie case and La R S 46 2251 III full scale trial when there is 2004 0229 p 1236 844 So 2d 355 unreasonable were not entitled to were immunity discrimination claims because she discrimination under La R S 23 301 judgment no 5 is v App 1st Cir McDuffie writ denied The summary judgment procedural device used to avoid genuine issue of material fact Craig La 357 a 9 17 04 2002 0935 2003 1147 procedure is favored and just speedy and inexpensive determination 4 dismissing partial summary judgment in favor of disability disability that granting SUMMARY JUDGMENT Western Sizzlin Steakhouse 3 28 03 of s and Grace and Mayor acts in 1 et seq A motion for summary West Inc 4 Ms Rider asserts that that the trial court erred judgment summary appealed v Bantek 885 So 2d 1241 p La is 3 La 1244 App 1st Cir 6 20 03 847 designed to of every action a La 2d So secure the C C P art January 31 2007 judgment of the trial court was a final judgment under La C C P 1 insofar as it dismissed defendants Chief Ambeau and Mayor Grace from these proceedings and therefore was subject to an immediate appeal See La CC P art 2083 However with regard to the partial summary judgment granted in favor of the City on Ms mi The 1915 A Rider s claims for disability and handicap discrimination the judgment was not a final subject to an immediate appeal unless the trial court designated a final judgment after an express determination that there was no just reason and therefore not judgment the judgment for delay as See La C C P art the 1915 B Initially in this case the trial court did not designate partial summary judgment subject to an immediate appeal in the written judgment however it did unnecessarily designate the judgment as final in the order of appeal As the appellate jurisdiction of this comi extends only to final judgments while this appeal was pending this court issued an interim order remanding this matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of having the trial cOUli designate in a written judgment that the grant of the summary judgment with regard to Ms Rider s disability and handicap discrimination claims was a final judgment with no just reasons for delay as required by La C C P art 1915 B mld the record on appeal was subsequently supplemented with said judgment Based on our de novo review ofthe matter we find that the trial court properly certified this judgment as final for purposes of an immediate appeal See RJ Messinger Inc v Rosenblum 2004 1664 pp 13 14 La 3 2 05 as a 894 final judgment 2d So 1113 1122 23 5 966 A 2 The motion should be to answers no entitled to judgment On a action or as a mover is before the court require genuine issue of law matter on him to will not file together with to material proof there is no judgment In point out genuine issue La C C P satisfy his evidentiary of material fact and the art 966 C on the mover s an the mover matter that burden does claim s absence of factual party s claim action determining whether summary judgment novo 4 9 03 under the 99 2181 842 So 2d 373 99 2257 p court thus asks the smmnary same 7 v 377 same is or as mover Service 868 So 2d 96 97 trial is entitled to summary appropriate appellate appropriate Fire Ins 755 So 2d 226 to judgment 2002 2482 Corp writ denied 2003 3439 830 6 courts p 3 La State v s ex 2002 1072 p Co Sunbeam v 230 An appellate determining whether there is any is entitled Allen Authority does the trial court in judgment is appropriate Petroleum proof at criteria that govern the trial court Independent La 2 29 00 questions material fact and whether the burden of mover reI Ernest N Morial New Orleans Exhibition Hall 11 19 03 trial on 2 determination of whether summary judgment is Ernest at that there is elements essential to the adverse one or more review evidence de Corp proof is negate all essential elements of the adverse party to is La C C P art 966 B bear the burden of to establish that he will be able to La mover Thereafter if the adverse party fails to produce factual support sufficient defense 5 any affidavits fact and that the the motion for summary judgment the defense but rather support for as on motion for summary judgment the burden of If however the not and admissions interrogatories show that there is granted only if the pleadings depositions whether genuine issue of as La a matter of App 2 20 04 1 st law Cir 866 So 2d The credibility of a witness is credibility determinations Feliciana Parish Police So 2d 808 813 Hutchinson 2 20 04 2003 1297 p Jury 2004 2286 of Columbus 866 So 2d 228 234 So 2d at 236 In deciding a 5 make Boland West App 18t Cir 11 24 04 Fire Ins Co motion for summary credible are court cannot judgment La La a v 6 25 04 888 99 2181 at p judgment the La 16 755 court must Fire Ins Independent 878 So 2d 231 Council No 5747 2003 1533 p 8 Independent that all of the witnesses assume question of fact thus motion for summary writ denied Knights v on a a Co 99 2181 at pp 16 17 755 So 2d at 236 Furthermore summary judgment is seldom appropriate for determinations based on faith knowledge when no or malice and should issue of material fact exists 2006 0322 p 6 La App 18t Cir subjective facts of motive intent good only be granted concerning that 12 28 06 2007 0189 La 3 23 07 951 So 2d 1105 2003 1424 p 6 04 La 14 4 IV A Ms Rider In the defendants claims there is were issue also Jones subjective issues Rager v Bourgeois v 333 writ denied Estate of Santiago 1006 LAW AND DISCUSSION ChiefAmbeau and Mayor Grace judgment they contended that the against Chief Ambeau and Mayor Grace should be dismissed because no genuine issue not Ms be sued Rider by Ms However properly named they see motion for summary s of material fact that Chief Ambeau and employers Employment Discrimination not such 951 So 2d 330 870 So 2d 1002 Claims against s on are the defined for purposes of the Louisiana La R S 23 301 et seq and therefore could Rider for such claims Ms as Laws as Mayor Grace Rider contends that Chief Ambeau and defendants in this employment governing officials for the City representatives of the City in this action In 7 and Mayor Grace are discrimination suit because therefore are the proper support of her contention Ms Rider relies on the provisions of La forth the duties and set chief of police this 33 321 of authority the Lawrason Act et seq officers municipal such which the mayor and as Ms Rider contends that because the Lawrason Act authorized both Chief Ambeau and Mayor Grace the recommendation including RS to make to personnel recommendations terminate Ms Rider they are proper parties to dispute While the Lawrason Act the including neither them creates ability municipal officers personnel recommendations the Lawrason Act cause of action under Louisiana law claims assert make employment an employers may to forth the duties of sets against those officers Louisiana renders Instead to determine whether Ms Rider against Chief Ambeau and Mayor employment discrimination nor law s Grace rise to those giving for causes alleged of action must be utilized An individual person who is not Louisiana L L P employment discrimination laws s 98 1805 Louisiana A 4 5 pp La 6 4 99 743 See cannot be sued under King So 2d 181 employment discrimination laws s employer employer an La v Phelps 185 R S Dunbar For purposes of 23 302 2 defines an as association legal or commercial entity the state or any state agency board commission or political subdivision of the state receiving services from an employee and in return giving person compensation Chapter more shall of any kind to apply only employees twenty or more to an an The employee employer who within this state for each calendar weeks in the provisions employs twenty working day current of this or or in each of preceding calendar year Accordingly in order for Ms Rider for employment discrimination claims A1nbeau and gave to sue Ms Chief Ambeau and to Ms Rider Based 8 on Grace Rider had to establish that Chief Mayor Grace individually received services from compensation Mayor our de novo Ms Rider and review we find the record devoid of such evidence It is Mayor Grace personally provided Ms Rider with any exchange for her services admission own her as undisputed that neither Chief Ambeau 81 Gabriel a employer was the material fact that Chief Ambeau and for employers judgment dismissing surmnary Ms against Chief Ambeau and Mayor Grace Therefore we hereby affirm that Ms Rider Ms not s of genuine issue no were by Rider s employment discrimination laws s Rider And As there is Mayor Grace of Louisiana purposes compensation or benefits in police officer City nor employment discrimination claims s appropriate was portion of the matter of as a 31 January law 2007 of the trial court Ambeau and 5 judgment Mayor Grace and dismissed them from these proceedings B Ms Rider s insofar Disability it as granted summary Discrimination Claims Louisiana Revised Statutes 23 323 A disabled person shall a disability not be subjected In the defendants judgment Against the provides that discrimination in to in favor of Chief City an otherwise qualified employment based motion for summary judgment they on contend that Ms Rider will not be able to establish any of the necessary elements of her claim that her employer disability the City unlawfully discriminated against and therefore the dismissing those case qualified that Because this suit 1 for the because of the 5 was on motion for summary judgment she has job and disability 3 must produce factual support a disability an adverse Thomas against v as defined employment establish to by the an statute employment decision was Louisiana Casino Cruises a 2 made Inc prima she is solely 2003 find summary judgment dismissing Chief Ambeau and Mayor Grace from appropriate as a matter of law since they were not Ms Rider s employers we we pretermit discussion this suit a claim the claimant disability to summary judgment claims In order to defeat facie City contends that it is entitled her because of her of whether the basis that the they were entitled to summary judgment dismissing them from entitled to qualified immunity under La RS 9 2798 1 B were 9 1937 p 3 La App 1 st Cir 6 25 04 886 So 2d 468 470 writ denied 2004 1904 La 10 29 04 1 Disability The threshold element of a claim for is whether the claimant meets the 2003 1937 has a 3 at p physical major life activities having such functions such as has or record of such a caring for one s self The evidence establishes that working and responding As left hip a to Dr to a performing and on left femur and pelvis June 29 surgeries Due to the Although was of the cartilage 2000 tolerating the pain from this condition a total noted that at the involved in severe to the educational potential a near likely to her injuries she physical limp According which is need a a presently total hip However Dr Dickson future for Ms Rider to very difficult do with this condition affidavit of Debrah LeBlanc consultant she conducted vocational injuries s was automobile an And while she is she will in the present time it would be any type of running According hip replacement means while Ms Rider severity of Ms Rider hip joint as walking seeing post traumatic arthrosis complete loss mihroplasty regarded Ms Rider underwent intensive developed in her is or of the La R S 23 322 7 in order to return to work Ms Rider still walks with Dickson Ms Rider has any person who one or more manual tasks working dispatch she Thomas Major life activities result of the accident Ms Rider sustained underwent several therapy means impairment an La R S 23 322 3 hearing speaking breathing learning accident Disabled person disabled impainnent which substantially limits impairment an statutory definition of 886 So 2d at 470 mental or employment disability discrimination a of Ms background vocational interview and Rider Based and vocational on 10 assessment to Ms Rider history licensed rehabilitation a s determine the medical information Ms LeBlanc opined that given Ms Rider restriction to s included unskilled type security guard LeBlanc also classified as institution worker positions such surveillance monitor a Ms opined that correctional commercial or disabled was officer Grace or to every kind of position Based upon defined had our he office clerk general positions perform jobs to construction or worker gate Ms that would be but limited to not child attendant drives sales industry any a de by statute The some disability form of and that he Ms Rider establishing was impairment that she was prima facie a offered testimony fact with impairment deposition that regard to by he knew had done by mov we find that Ms ing her that she is disabled case Ms Rider establishes whether Ms regarded by others such and that this disabled review of the above evidence novo her burden of in his acknowledged couldenable her to function to issues of material an security guard heavy work level including everything he could during the time met and unarmed an institutional cleaner or Additionally Mayor Rider as laborer or Ms Rider light work level her potential jobs or a Rider is unable medium work level officer police work sedentary as Rider Mayor impairment substantially has Grace limits her as major a a as genuine physical having such life activity of working 2 Qualified for the Job An o therwise qualified disable with reasonable accommodation employment position The Department run City must can person be able radar make arrests that to a a disabled person who perform the essential functions that such person holds contends means or desires patrol officer of the La R S 23 322 8 for the St Gabriel Police patrol the roads check buildings take complaints transport arrestees work accidents write accident perfonn traffic control and perform any other 11 reports duty authorized by the Chief of Police And because Ms Rider cannot officer such a as apprehending criminals perform the essential duties running driving she is unable to establish that she is gun contends that Ms Rider job s as hired as therefore officer dispatcher a or desk a temporary position for Ms Rider due qualified to her determine whether Ms Rider to requirements not the patrol for the job sergeant and The must approved by the council examination within is one generally referred According April to to was as enforcement weapons radar as being training one Ms Rider on a the a And the job patrol police certified a council training or peace program approved comprehensive This employment POST certified year of the date she courses was hired by the domestic violence firearm hazardous material technical assistance internal affairs on 81 Gabriel Police successfully attended and completed law defensive tactics vehicle stops operation was had to be evaluated calendar year from the date of initial Additionally and child first aid successfully complete pass City further patrol officer a qualified for dispatcher requirements successfully patrol the evidence Ms Rider received her POST certification 10 2000 within Department and carrying dispatcher Louisiana Revised Statutes 40 2405 mandates that all officers in Louisiana or car a injuries and that Ms Rider was not desk sergeant but rather a a of on qualifications adult awareness chemical juvenile delinquency dopplar counter terrorism and chemical testing for intoxication Ms officer Rider not Additionally a s employment records patrol officer and was reveal that she later made the was hired temporary position but an As desk sergeant and two years a police dispatcher supervisor the evidence demonstrates that Ms Rider held the sergeant and dispatcher for approximately as position of desk therefore it was not a accommodation for her disabilities supervisor dispatcher 12 Ms Rider s duties entailed processing warrants Parish jail photographing police officers and traffic violations Rider s Rider was facie able to case a performing the job or a de our novo of desk sergeant and that was genuine qualified for the adverse The produce City contends 2003 to the s were her eliminate Ms to Ms dispatcher supervisor we was a find that Ms to establish by a prima Ms Rider disabled person who the essential functions of police of Disability factual that Ms city council testimony he needed department and a to support establishing was Rider made was a prima facie solely because of her terminated because budget reductions s reduction However other than unable to avoiding identify particularly after the established that implement of a for the 8t Gabriel an at the time he took office immediate reorganization force because the annual III budgeted for operating the City new perform Ms Department Chief Alnbeau cuts perform employment decision reduction in force due was dispatcher The evidence offered job issue of material fact that she Ms Rider had to an disability 1 not review of the above evidence Employment Decision Because Lastly July a for other dispatcher supervisor Adverse Police as Thus the decision gun with reasonable accommodation could case working burden of producing factual support sufficient that she established 3 the lberville patrol duties was an accommodation And with that accommodation met her officer and only duties of her job she could including carrying Based upon Rider to during investigations handling reports arrested persons booking Rider indicated that the patrol duties scenes transporting inmates of 8t Gabriel Police Department decreased reduction that he achieved he admitted to hiring part time patrol officers 13 a new of the designated funds the expense of retirement benefits budget on by Chief Ambeau his personnel full time assistant and several Chief Ambeau testified that he Department a s reorganization public meeting on July chart included the well as the names and reduction in force 3 2003 names presented his plan for the 81 Gabriel Police employees he wanted hire and to Ambeau testified that his chart did selected for reduction in force identify the put the want to embalTassing he to his loud the at out terminate office with and the listed those include the names there because people name on for the first time s in a reason he but said these Department are city council approved s and at of the not as the Chief employees specifically because he didn it would be t quite He further testified that the and hire keeping employees was at reorganization was he did thought public meeting Chief Ambeau to on He testified that the the 81 Gabriel Police names not keep employees chosen for termination names didn t call out the employed run of the name City department s personnel that he new meeting he asked for approval the Chief Ambeau testified that his of the of several to people that he this is what he it Mayor want want s s to Grace read out proposed chart before the city counsel adopted the plan Chief Ambeau testified that he did not have any of the submitting access police department s personnel files including his to and did not review Ms Rider s file prior to reorganization chart and reduction in force plan to the city council Chief Ambeau testified that he based his decision to select the officers for the reduction in force because of his personal opinion that they were not good police officers As to one of the from the warden employees Chief Ambeau testified that he received at Hunt s concerning worked with him in the sheriff s sexual harassment other employees they that Chief Ambeau testified and that department as 14 letter employee harassing females and had department the sheriff s a to specific was the same got rid of him events reason As to the he either witnessed or heard about involving these officers mistreating or mishandling people of duty course Chief Ambeau testified that when he made the decision Rider in the reduction in force officer As to his testified that didn on t w exist in as a reasons for police department that desk a t patrol too close she couldn guard fence guard fence was have t was Based upon met case 3 2003 as the our desk sergeant and that was t out police position not patrolling and could not and can you for that an reduction in force or novo producing as disability general who told get in the t cars anymore because the push the seat back because of the would have liked he and Ms Rider had s factual support sufficient employment decision to to have kept put people inability to was we on to work as to made find that Ms establish whether Ms was as a Rider was on genuine Chief Ambeau fact exist with against the City 15 a a s officer genuine issues of material discrimination claims prima terminated because of terminated based patrol a by Chief Ambeau The evidence offered demonstrated whether she find his Captain Tatney review of the above evidence perception that she could not work we with desk sergeant a patrolling only reason he didn t keep her adverse issue of material fact there on and his conversation after he took patrol public meeting position a de her burden of Because a police department needed people her she couldn t solely because of her disability s his including himself that work shift patrol officer Rider as was Chief Ambeau then testified that he her but he didn facie job never seen sergeant don him that Rider as patrol officer Chief Ambeau testified that his belief was based July a include Ms worked with her never As to his belief that Ms Rider office but before the the road to Ms Rider for termination Chief Ambeau selecting personal observation that he knowledge he had hen he took office her his the road function his in the as set regard Mr forth above the City was Therefore trial entitled not we hereby that comi to partial reverse summary that granted partial judgment dismissing those claims portion of the April 3 2007 judgment Ms judgment dismissing summary of the Rider s disability discrimination claims against the City C Ms Rider Ms s Handicap Discrimination Rider also asserted discrimination pursuant Handicapped La R S 46 2256 23 323 A 2 he Prior person a discriminated against ability to perform However to 1997 on the effective set 2001 1076 Thus because Ms Rider entitled to rests judgment comi insofar 1 as he 1997 set was a when it Act for claim under a forth in La R S handicapped discharged was handicap Rights establish requirements was person otherwise or unrelated to his position or the Legislature amended forth in La R S 23 321 p 1 n 1 La a La matter we R S of law et 11 28 01 discrimination claim s to handicap on La R S provide to that governed solely by the provisions of law relating Therefore as 3 Civil seq employment discrimination and solely under discrimination claims the trial the particular job August now disability discrimination impairment to the basis of the the duties of a such discrimination is her et requirements and job 46 2252 to delete the reference to of Alexandria 46 2251 the City against the City based plaintiff had to show 1 that he qualified for was RS almost identical were in that claim a to La Claims Against the See seq 800 So 2d 806 we dismissing find that the Ms hereby affirm the April s v 806 City n against the City with regard 23 321 it dismissed Ms Rider Delaney handicap Rider 3 2007 s City to to was handicap judgment of discrimination claims against the City v For all of the above and the January 31 2007 CONCLUSION foregoing judgment reasons of the trial 16 we hereby court affinn that which granted portion of summary judgment in favor of the defendants Kevin Ambeau Sr and and dismissed them from this suit and granted partial of the dismissed City of S1 discrimination claims reverse that Gabriel and against the City of portion of the January granted partial summary judgment dismissed Antoinette Rider s 31 S1 2007 George Grace Sr summary judgment in favor Antoinette Rider s Gabriel However judgment of the trial in favor of the handicap hereby we court that City of S1 Gabriel and disability discrimination claims against the City of S1 Gabriel All costs of this between the appeal in the amount of plaintiff Antoinette M 1 026 50 assessed Rider and the defendant the Gabriel AFFIRMED IN PART are REVERSED IN PART 17 equally City of 81
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
