Mahl v. Nokia Inc, No. 06-30518 (5th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 20, 2006 _______________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-30518 Summary Calendar _______________________ MARY MAHL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NOKIA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 05-5243 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mary Mahl appeals the district court s grant of summary judgment to Nokia, Inc. ( Nokia ) on her Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Because we agree with the district court s reasoning, we AFFIRM.1 On her employment discrimination claim, Mahl is unable to present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Nokia * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 Additionally, Nokia s motion to strike new arguments raised by Mahl in her reply brief to this court is GRANTED. employed the requisite number of employees. See LA. REV. STAT. 23:302(2). Mahl s affidavit that to her knowledge Nokia employed numerous people is insufficient to withstand summary judgment. See Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir. 2006) ( Conclusory allegations and unsubstantiated assertions, however, are not competent summary judgment evidence. ). Mahl also claims intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the fact that Nokia sent termination only days after Hurricane Katrina. her notice of As found by the district court, although the precise timing is unfortunate, this does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required to state such a claim. See White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So.2d 1205 (La. 1991). The district court s grant of summary judgment to Nokia is AFFIRMED. 2

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.