Janet London VS State of Louisiana, Division of Administration, Seth Keener, Jr., Robert McCardle, Ann Wax and Karen Jackson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2006 CA 0872 JANET LONDON VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION SETH KEENER JR ROBERT McCARDLE ANN WAX and KAREN JACKSON Judgment f 1 frI J V 111 On Appeal Rendered February 9 2007 from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No 464 950 Honorable Donald R Johnson Judge Presiding Dawn N Guillot Attorney Baton Janet London Rouge LA Amy Groves Lowe Baton Rouge LA BEFORE CARTER C J for Plaintiff 2nd Attorney for Defendant Appellant 1 st Appellant State of Louisiana Div of Admin WHIPPLE AND MCDONALD JJ CARTER C J 24 September On filing after specifically alleged retaliation a over a the ten year period the State damages plus of judicial demand on ened in appeal denying prescription 3 2 1 Ms London State had harassment and promotions beginning in denied in four denied The matter October 1998 15 the State costs 2004 attorney s promotions proceeded to after which the trial in and 1989 favor of Ms a court London for fees and interest from the date 2 The State and Ms issues to 14 and judgment against 37 569 00 in 1998 because she had filed many discrimination regarding September on the as Equal Employnlent charge that the EEOC petition and in her peliod of May 1998 bench trial rendered October 23 particularly referencing discrimination more dUling on the continuous pattern of racial discrimination grievances against and EEOC Commission Opportunity engaged in charge of discrimination with a 19th the Management hereafter refened to of Administration Office of Risk State III State of Louisiana Division against her employer the Judicial District Court brought suit London Janet 1999 can London both be summed up the State s court The 1 whether the tlial cOUli follows peremptory exception raising the objection of whether the trial whether the trial as appealed from the judgment court ened in supervisory position and in failing to ened in failing award finding to place damages the State liable Ms and London in a for emotional distress charge was dismissed and Ms London s notice ofher right to sue was August 6 1999 advising her that she had 90 days to sue regarding the The EEOC mailed to her on charge 2 The Honorable Jewel E Duke Welch presided 2004 however the Honorable Donald R Johnson 12 2006 in accordance with LSA R S 13 4209 2 over signed the day bench trial in final judgment on January the two After thorough review of relevant federal and a evaluation of the record we precedent controls the issues raised 122 S Ct 2061 2073 Tucker 607 So 2d 532 Rouge 02 0952 La denied 05 0255 899 that well settled case City v 898 So 2d 385 So 2d Ms 12 London s acts necessary to denying the State the not be findings are Louisiana law has reversed absent manifest reasonable in though sitting the trier of fact it would have 880 State v 882 883 deference to not reverse through Dept La 1993 the trier of fact s even of s result we 844 La find determinations 1989 the are trial trial unless and Transp court err in its in error court s we factual reasonable and that erroneous 3 its entirety If an differently So 2d standard demands great of voice that bear Although findings Development 617 findings for only the fact finder tone s clearly wrong the evidence understanding and belief in what is said So 2d 840 constitute convinced that had it been weighed The manifest of the variations in demeanor and listener error or a light of the record reviewed comi may Stobart timely the trial court did not long held that appellate as based exception of prescription s Furthermore of fact may writ The evidence established the type of continual and cumulative continuing violation Therefore v of Baton race was actionable law 101 388 389 discrimination humiliation and retaliation claim an an Bustamento 2002 and Alcorn 1992 US Morgan 536 v 106 1 Cir 12 30 04 4 8 05 La La jurisprudence and appeal 153 L Ed 2d 541 542 App in this Passenger Corp Under National R R 115 convinced are state so Rosell can heavily v findings are aware on ESCO may have reached conclusions be a the 549 different and credibility not manifestly Finally award of find we damages emotional distress and YonD cert appellate an v no in this abuse of discretion in the trial case The trial court court should Maritime Overseas denied including the 510 U S s discretion in rarely disturb an 114 S Ct 1059 an award of general damages trial find Ms London a we promotion supervisory position Thus we Rules argument that she after the State was 2 363 26 are We issue this memorandum Courts of Appeal Rule 2 entitled Ms found liable court to be opinion 1B 16 AFFIRMED 4 case to be 1994 London went to placed into without merit Costs for this equally borne by the to be 1993 127 L Ed 2d 379 was affirm the judgment of the trial in the amount of London s La 1260 61 in title and pay raise the year before this a reasonable express award for Additionally in light of the uncontradicted testimony that received s assessing damages is great 623 So 2d 1257 Corp 1114 lack of court appeal State and Ms in accordance with Uniform
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.
