Mildred L. Richard VS The Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College and Melissa A. Rog

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 CA 0927 MILDRED R RICHARD VERSUS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF M COLLEGE LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND A ET AL Judgment Rendered March 28 2007 Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court and For the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana On In Trial Court No 450 606 Division Honorable William A Morvant H Judge Presiding J Arthur Smith III Counsel for Plaintiff First Baton Mildred L Richard Rouge LA Counsel for Defendant Appellee Second Appellant Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University A M College and Melissa Roge Charles C Foti Jr Patricia H Wilton Baton Appellant Rouge LA Charles C Foti Jr Counsel for Defendant Alden A Clement Jr Board of Supervisors of Clifton O Bingham Baton Rouge LA BEFORE Jr Southern Appellee University PETTIGREW DOWNING AND HUGHES JJ HUGHES J appeals herein the decision of the jury Plaintiff Mildred L Richard and judgment of the trial Ms Richard civil s Louisiana State court in this and University SouthelTI 3 found the Board of liable not awarded nominal 2 Ms Richard the s civil rights by Ms Roge Ms Richard 3 Ms limiting amounting Civil to Act Rights alleging an civil s Richard on ultimate behalf ofLSU of 1964 in I This enrollment Richard claim on the trial cOUli to the 2 Roge violation of giving the jury in relation to the behalf of LSU and against Southern For the to to to Title VII has also acts of the appealed reasons that follow the we and render judgment FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE Mildred at of SouthelTI assessing nominal damages against both Ms reverse litigation arises concerning Ms part Roge defendant herein LSU the trial cOUli erred in reverse Ms employment action pursuant university and its employee amend rights by retaliation s 1 00 damages of alleges improper verdict fOlTI1 regarding punitive damages violation of Ms Richard violation of employee of an Supervisors awarding only nominal damages in relation 1 a Richards for retaliation pursuant to Ms Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 erred in found 1 which rights by defendant Melissa Roge University LSU for that violation matter R out of events Richard employment s the peace officer basic began working as a at late 1990s Southern and training academy operated by her LSU peace officer at Southern in November 1992 In accordance with La R S 40 2405 A 1986 must a successfully complete during the that OCCUlTed certified 2 1 peace officers hired after training program or else be prohibited from exercising the authority of a Southen1 sent Ms Richard to the basic her session began March 20 on the defensive tactics Richard portion injured her foot On March 22 while of the program who insttucted her refrain from the same doctor saw activities on April likelihood of Richard next Officer Standards and enforcement expressed complaints 13 April hindered Ms Richard s s dismissed from the as academy statute notes Wright foot s 14 4 Wright an 04 that her dismissal 2 was utilized oversees state law The letter wrongfully due by the to Academy s The council met heard from both Ms to dismiss Ms Richard EEOC administrative be the position at May s 1996 she Equal Employment the program due on Human to her being complete the certified training program shall not be prohibited The supreme court has held however that the statute does not 8 to an unqualified peace officer Grant v Grace 2003 2021 p not 1015 16 prior the In and the Louisiana Commission alleging discrimination that those who do to into 1996 against the academy with 870 So 2d 1011 appears Council which problems continued from performing administrative duties guarantee letter to the Peace a frivolous LCHR Rights POST sent Wright and unanimously voted complaint a attOlney who an suspicion s OppOliunity Commission 2 was disparate requirements and Ms Richard La on she failed the program to have at any rate May and Training Ms Richard Richard and Ms The seems academy saw Coordinator Ms Melissa 1 doctor saw a to attempted personnel qualifications and celiification issues subjective filed She Richard running and jumping until further notice injury twice in test training for 18 he advised that she could return to full April The in graduation Ms the on at the success defensive tactics before 24 Ms Fearing dismissal engaged LSD accident occuned and Ms an despite being in pain She early 1995 training academy operated by continue the program to In peace officer name of the defendant Melissa 3 Roge black and favoritism towards the white 1996 the LCHR dismissed Ms Richard which is limited to R S employment and academy students s charges In September beyond its jurisdiction as public accommodations pursuant to La 51 2231 In Richard encountered August 1997 Ms employment environment grievance against estimation at Southern that led her her file internal Southern an In Ms Richard supervisor Captain Robert Johnson her Capt Johnson had sought to date her daughter refused Capt Johnson acted against assign to difficulty in her some daughter and when her Ms Richard by continuing that disadvantageous and long weekend work shifts to Richard felt should have been given s to peace officers at to Ms Southenl with less seniority Ms Richard the record shows Capt was assignment fuliher official interaction between Ms Richard and Roge at the LSD Richard December 19 was 1997 when he sent her with him the to attend the LSD on 1997 academy not copied by telephone On as on that read in 5 on Roge s letter as She will not Capt advising upcoming Several days letter from Melissa follows Mildred in May of be admitted back into Ms Richard Capt Johnson and Ms Roge apparently spoke December 19 1997 1998 her 123rd Basic Training Academy Capt Johnson her of the December 19 letter from Ms Ms pertinent pmi a litigation filed against this Academy this letter well January the day regarding Capt Johnson received for failure of Defensive Tactics to next a memo academy again in January 1998 dismissed from the Academy due was no to meet later the grievance against Capt Johnson was not successful and Johnson until December 16 that she 1995 s concerning wrote to Ms Ms Richard Richard and advised Roge After relaying the contents of Johnson concluded his letter with the 4 following Due to the fact that you day Johnson a not meeting was held at University you Academy On that Southern Southern that included Ms Richard to seems have centered on Capt if she being tel1llinated Ms Richard are Tony Moudgil and Interim Vice Chancellor for Administration discussion did at Law to attend the Law Enforcement Basic required by same officer are an successfully complete the Janumy 1998 academy program Ms 1998 her The letter amounted Richard attorney alleged again sought sent a the advice of counsel and letter to Capt Johnson with that the recent actions by Capt EEOC LCHR charges a violation of 42 U S C 9 January 6 copy to Ms a Roge Johnson and Ms employment discrimination in response to on to Ms 2000e 3 Richard Roge s 1995 a employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for training or retraining including on the job training programs to discriminate against any individual to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter or because he has made a charge testified assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation proceeding or hearing under this subchapter It On shall be January 27 an unlawful Ms 1998 February another as untimely the dispute 1998 to the extent that Southern academy the program seems agreed in Louisiana where she could again UnfOliunately it contacting these other instituted filed filed litigation resulted in all of them programs against a to get a appears that help 5 a bit in Ms Richard find fi esh stmi and attempt Capt Johnson Academy which admit Ms Richard eventually thawed informed them that Ms the LSU declining was to have to EEOC LCHR new Although this complaint complaint against Southern dismissed Richard when Richard had seems to have April On against Ms Richard 28 Southern 1998 Richard for failure attorney responded s instituted achieve the to Richard litigation but expressed Ms Richard sent attorney a letter to actually lawsuit and for filing a false 2 so that an a as own s litigation complaint is EEOC LCHR s in was s 1998 that 8 expressed 1 that Capt Johnson that Southern complaint Roge Richard Ms May on programs that Ms Richard wrongful tennination of discrimination be reached from Southern personnel officer s to Ms The letter threatened compromise might representation since to to a The letter academy amounted amounted Southenl litigation the other a that Ms Roge s conduct 1997 and Ms would not be terminated also threatened notifying hope a by letter flagrantly unlawful were proceedings required certification 1998 19 alleging that the letter of December toward Ms 1 May on termination not handling of the situation permanent civil service employee she is perfectly entitled to do under the law These letters seem to have had some academy and Southern The academy extended to attend the academy s summer Likewise Southern decided clear that her continued impact an invitation 1998 session which not to was telminate Ms Richard employment was both the LSD on conditioned on to to Ms Richard begin in June although it made completion of the POST certification program Ms Richard illness was her medical She filed her suit unable to attend the disability during on June 11 1998 racial discrimination in defendants the academy for her in the December 19 summer 1998 session due to that time is documented in the record against Ms conduct 1997 letter Roge and denying her re alleging admission to that amounted to retaliation filing the EEOC LCHR complaint in May 1996 6 LSD She sought for her compensatory and punitive damages damage to her which included injuries and to her personal and professional reputation professional life including mental anguish and distress personal and She also attorney fees and injunctive relief against further discrimination thereafter LSU and Ms cause of action which Roge filed down for time until some personnel coordinator advised the had failure to do January on 11 not attend the fell ill at academy firing but she suffered range shooting terminated from the the program was anxiety test Ms Richard to to sent to the disability attempted yet again s a LSU and could not complete an Richard s the attend the the program s to complete academy Southeln s police August 18 1999 and recommended August that she had academy had 7 was 1999 letter that third unsuccessful attempt on and LSU notified Southern August 16 the letter from the On to the point of needing medication failed by at attorney medical the termination personnel office personnel on s admitted 1999 Ms seem and that statute re 13 police chief and explained but also that placed could on that Ms Richard be terminated the Southern chief that Ms Richard still police August Upon receiving wrote to the was Ms Richard academy police chief of also noted this chief at Ms that time Finally in July 1999 campus campus 1999 that stated her desire to be academy no January 1999 when the university would result in termination so academy but she again her Roge things achieved her celiification in accordance with the not letter good evaluation repOli Despite very LSU and Ms litigation against quieted have of objection Ms Richard continued to work at Southern and in September 1998 she received a s the ShOlily later denied was During this time Richard exception raising an sought 20 1999 Ms Richard wrote to again not had medical difficulties been suppOliive and helpful including the SouthelTI representative Ms that her Roge and neveliheless Richard began termination procedures Ms Richard her there again originally dismissed has discriminated and that that from the against a the envirol1ll1ent for Despite September 9 University has oppOliunities 1999 to at the LSU In these efforts in its LSU discliminatory approved attempts Southern treatment LSU s correspondence plastered with Richard in her to allowing that you a on t he several a Ms Richard s suit in late supplemental and amending that her alleging superiors knew racially discriminatory and retaliatory a to Roge course defendant a was blatantly racist so time one reasonable to return in attend harassed her while she and at Richard filed as that alleged that Ms race range is Roge answered when it forced her SouthelTI denied her intentionally Ms citing that she Ms Richard shooting necessary academy would be environment that Ms SouthelTI petition adding the LSD 2000 That letter SouthelTI terminated Ms than more complete the early 1999 number of other African Americans were range noting been 1999 1 telTI1inating significant Meanwhile LSU and Ms 1999 25 Southem range Academy because of her the walls of the LSU swastika firing August on hostile environment required by law as September on legitimate basis was no a presented documentation of her medical problems and wrote attorney at the difficulty failure to achieve celiification s LSU created litigation against that contributed to her stress and academy Captain Bailey and the at conspired different a was the summer the deprive her to and that Southern firing of range that Roge testing fair and non acquiesced in and implicitly deprivation of her constitutional right 8 that Ms academy attempting of 1999 to fair treatment when it terminated her based claims In late 2001 Ms Richard LSD filed claims had s caused Ms the summary LSD or she not filed in moot barred were s barred were failure at the by any discriminatory actions August 2002 The trial by LSD s Roge s qualified Ms by adopted these arguments in Southern judgment were for Ms Richard reason alleging that motion for summary judgment prescribed by her own inability Roge a immunity Eleventh Amendment immunity and that academy which by retaliatory and racial animus tainted was her dismissal from the on comi academy was on a the part of motion for denied these motions in late 2002 Depositions of and Ms Richard s physicians and Ms Richard filed 2002 due alleging violations of the unconstitutional laws Ms Richard a were second as pmi of the discovery process supplemental and amending petition in late civil application by Roge Capt Johnson of SouthelTI taken violations process State Ms service equal protection violations commission s and due authority Southern of La R S 40 2402 and 2405 to the mandating and governing POST certification A third lodged supplemental and amending petition filed Ms Richard s her civil litigation came response to Rights rights EEOC LCHR bringing her a August claim that SouthelTI violated the retaliation of Title VII of the Civil exercising in and actions in late 1997 and pmiicipating complaint against admit Ms Richard to the Ms Richard had early provisions Act of 1964 when it terminated her for about after the EEOC LCHR complaint 2003 1998 academy in protected activity a LSD sent This addition right a to sue by to the letter in lodged against SouthelTI for its At that point LSD had refused to after she filed her original re EEOC LCHR complaint then Capt Johnson of SouthelTI called the other academies and 9 advised them that Ms Richard had which academy led conespondence took which did amount them to retaliation and to termination of her for failure not between Southern In calls phone violation of Title VII a and its celiification program which to pass the June 2005 presented another motion for SouthelTI judgment expressing regret that its prior motion for not addressed Southell1 all its arguments for summary alleged 42 D S C 1 that it 2 S 1983 was that prescribed 4 not as immunity against suit under 42 a an proper was arm D S C that she had neither direct equal protection rights had not been violated question did The trial entirety dismissing except for those based an ultimate cOUli all granted to claims s circumstantial evidence of or s any of its actions by employment action as claims s constitutional and 6 actions in s understood the motion for summary of Ms Richard her on entitled was claim for retaliation because Southern not amount to within Title VII its a it state pursuant to constitutional due process and 5 that she failed to state defendant 3 that Ms Richard S 1983 that Ms Richard In this motion judgment of the summary summmy judgment had person discriminatOlY intent in s EEOC violation of Title VII a had The admission her deny distinguish to care LSD outstanding litigation against the judgment against SouthelTI due process and equal protection rights and those associated with her telTIlination by SouthelTI JUlY trial began jury found that Ms on July Roge s violation of Ms Richard s 18 2005 and ended letter of December 19 constitutional and civil had not proven her conduct in that required by 42 D S C on S 1983 regard was As to Southern connection between Ms Richard s July 22 2005 The 1997 amounted to rights and that Ms Roge objectively reasonable the jury found no a as causal protected activity of filing the EEOC 10 LCHR complaint and Southern eventual termination of her for failure to s the celiification program complete The awarded Ms jury Richard no damages After the trial Ms Richards timely filed judgment notwithstanding the verdict December 2005 denied was at which awarded nominal JNOV was granted s but motion for trial was new for or heard in trial was to the extent that she only 1 00 for the violation damages of new The matter time Ms Richard her motion for JNOV motion for a by Ms Roge and LSU II DISCUSSION Ms Richard has nominal damages against claims 2 its alleged the trial comi appealed 1 LSU and Ms in enol giving s decision Roge with respect the jmy an to award to her Ms 9 1983 claims and 3 its limiting her Title VII retaliation claim they to acts were Roge and non amounting LSU have appealed to Ms defendant in s anti retaliation cases pursuant Richard Thiboutot 1980 the 448 U S It is also the actions in state 1 against such that provisions Ms s 9 1983 claims This discussion tmTI state courts may to her to judgment against them for nominal the We note at the outset that while the bulk of in federal court Roge with respect employment action ultimate an actionable under Title VII damages with respect treats each to 1983 inconect verdict form concelTIing punitive damages against LSU and Southern 9 only also exercise principle of 3 case 1 n concurrent 100 S Ct 2502 that the same and federal comis body but 9 1983 cases are jmisdiction 2503 n 1 are 1983 v 65 L Ed 2d 555 of federal law governs state comis 9 Maine jurisdiction not follow the law of their federal circuit See Parish Nat l Bank 1 1 over brought S 1983 obligated v to Lane 397 So 2d 1282 1285 which also arise La out of body of federal caselaw This also holds 1981 a federal statutory has Roge been entitled to the of objection defendant no cause that is within the 483 U S Creighton 1987 matter Harlow an of action from L Ed 2d 396 actions also 1982 apply in timely answer of his course a California 635 638 39 and on s or U S state courts her official even applicable 277 284 of exception raising motion for summary an damages where the money 800 814 that hear context Qualified immunity protects 107 S Ct 3034 The immunities 444 U S in LSU capacity in a manner if the conduct plaintiffs constitutional rights has held that federal law govenls their v substantial affirmative defense in the liability for Fitzgerald 457 v a claiming that she should have objectively reasonable and in good faith in and of itself violates from which Roge the trial comi denied official state acts appealed in this She raised this claim judgment which individual Melissa qualified immunity 9 1983 litigation regime has evolved A Ms for Title VII actions true 3038 action or See Anderson v 97 L Ed 2d 523 102 S Ct 2727 2736 73 in federal comis to 9 1983 9 1983 actions the Supreme Comi availability to defendants 100 S Ct 553 558 Martinez 62 L Ed 2d 481 1980 Harlow atiiculated individual defendant is a two First La 2001 test for comis to determine whether protected by qualified immunity the supreme comi in Jackson 2882 p 9 part 785 the comi must State v 2d So 803 rei Dep spelled t of Corrections 809 look to determine whether the law ex as was cunently applicable law and clearly established at the time the action in question occuned If the comi determines that the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred the Harlow analysis requires the public official claiming 12 out an by 2000 immunity because of extraordinary circumstances to show that he neither knew or should have known of the relevant legal standard Anderson followed and refined Harlow be protected by qualified immunity unless should have Here Ms contest what Anderson 483 U S for a act itself Richard she believed action s to be redress of grievances and 3 There is incident in filing a s as occUlTed EEOC claim second attempt Roge s as a reason at to right official will she did violated the or at the in charge academy petition 3039 at 1996 to was a legally the government language of the Civil Rights outlined in the Ms state finds that the official EEOC an was a 640 107 S Ct at discrimination doubt that the law no question Ms Richard her for in exercise of her First Amendment protected cOUli a reasonably understood that what he plaintiffs claimed right that by adding clearly established when December 19 for the LSU 1997 letter academy not to re the citing admit The first prong of the certification program Harlow has been met Concerning Ms the second Roge had shown that she neither knew relevant legal that Ms Roge had 1997 letter instlucted standard was on constitutional conclusions not or are nor shown that her conduct in objectively civil test the jUlY reasonable that Ms The Roge concluded that should have known of the Pursuant to Anderson however the the verdict form As either jury concluded writing the thus jUlY December 19 concluded had violated Ms as Richard s rights findings of fact subject to the affords great deference 3 pmi of the Harlow or mixed manifest error to the trier of fact be it judge or See Sllpra p 5 for citation to 42 US c 2000e 3 a See also Alcorn v 2002 0953 p 10 La App 1 Cir 6 27 03 851 So 2d 1194 1203 a protected activity 42 D S C 13 these standard of review which 0952 discrimination with the EEOC is law questions of fact and 2000e 3 a jUlY City See of Baton The filing Boykin v Rouge 2002 a charge of of Louisiana Transit Co 1231 96 1932 p Inc Upon reviewing the record conclusions by the jury thus Ms 11 find we Roge that Ms her actions in Richard s nominal damages of claim against to pursuant entail 1983 S 502 U S 21 damages because as The capacity is injunctive defendant but has her individual the recovery or 4 Will v Michigan Dep Of course under a specific court to delve determine whether state a 1983 because or her official Hafer 502 U S at 24 n 362 63 or 112 S Ct at 361 14 116 a 71 n damages official in his state a or it is to sue Roge Ms as an obviously preferable a ambiguity injunctive are not n or as to official l0 105 L Ed 2d45 relief would be treated S that suit in order individual l0 109 S Ct 2304 2312 when sued for a Roge in fairly interpretive approach relief her 4 While prospective n to her official be sued for Richard has named Ms capacity actions for opposed as officer in his into the substance and intent of capacity be recovered only in the first instance to avoid any State 5 can cannot against both t of State Police 491 U S 58 official her 112 S Ct 358 defendant has been sued in official in his this properly the effective defendant in interest is Court itself has undeliaken Supreme a be or awarding of only s individually declaratory relief capacity to Ms move assess characterized whether she seeks official or plaintiff to permits not an regarding has been sued in Roge 27 discussed above only comi damages money we In order to Roge We note at the outset that Ms for the 1997 letter brought against Suits 1991 itself which state 19 whether Ms Melo v in these error immunity is without merit officer sued and found liable cannot capacity Ms capacity for See Hafer L Ed 2d 301 official official or state a officially the 1 00 manifest no regarding the trial enol it must be determined individual from assignment of 707 So 2d 1225 is not immune from suit Roge the December sending 3 4 98 assignment of error that she should s have been afforded the protection of qualified Having detemlined La actions a person the against Brandon capacity L Ed 2d 878 v Holt 469 U S 464 469 71 1985 Ms Richard stated in Paragraph times relevant hereto the defendant and acting within the was capacity scope of her we suspect the Ms liability was an of the term to more employee of Ms sue LSD While this employment Roge acting within the do with Ms Richard than her intentions for the civil Richard Ms claims s compensatory and punitive damages claims for still Roge t all a in her course and state tort s rights aspect of 6 Considering to original petition that and scope of her use had employment claims of vicarious this suit course 2 of her that Ms Richard intended to might initially suggest official 105 S Ct 873 877 78 83 subject to fmiher Richard intended to discrimination sue Ms allegation As noted above Ms Richard capacities Roge in her official capacity but she her individual capacity in Roge both in Paragraph Roge Ms by in addition along with LSD and both and her injunctive relief Roge for both Ms against her camlot can recover for the violation caused we is 8 that she conclude that Ms official and individual recover from Ms damages damages from Ms by the December Roge 19 in 1997 letter The trial jUlY we recall found amended this cOUli the challenged award to in her violation but awarded a 1 00 JNOV defendants have briefed this court negate 6 or The phrase but belongs employee 2000 vols 13 H adjust course more See a trial court or subject of generally an William E Crawford Alston Jolmson III Workers LSD cites employer Tori Law Compensation 14 266 69 2002 15 loosely an Ms the Richard its to capacity abuse of discretion in workers vicarious s damages Richard and the LSD thoroughly concerning is often used employment the to damages when Both Ms jury award and scope of properly nominal no liability compensation analysis for torts caused by Louisiana Civil Law Treatise vol 12 an 145 Law and Practice Louisiana Civil Law Treatise standard providing supreme cOUli to the authority effect that T he discretion vested in the trier of fact is even appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages Reasonable persons frequently disagree about the measure of general damages in a patiicular case It is only when the award is in either direction beyond that which a vast that and great so an for the effects of the plaintiff under the patiicular reasonable trier of fact could particular injury assess the to circumstances that the patiicular appellate cOUli should increase or reduce the award Yonn Maritime Overseas v 1261 623 So 2d 1257 Corp La 1993 reply brief In her cOUli nominal s detenlline anew amounts to on legal a trial action court erroneously instructed On the or jury on damages when a due process but Piphus plaintiff establishes cannot prove 113 S Ct 566 435 U S 237 1978 By awarded in a 9 the 7 that 505 So 2d 1120 d 8 at 1128 29 573 the 1128 v is no in the jUlY S reasons of zero La 1987 Traylor 481 So 2d 1017 16 right to procedural Hobby 506 1992 1047 award nominal to v the context U S citing Carey v 1054 55 L Ed 2d 252 compensatory damages may be oral award the jUlY has been a 9 1983 obligated proof of actual injUlY s to 8 Farrar 98 S Ct 1042 or damages based causally related the violation of his injUlY COlTect damages that award when or 121 L Ed 2d 494 the trial court citing Rodriguez court reasoning 1983 suit absent indicated Mart v Hill actual 254 266 same In this matter JNOV a to asseIiing LSU cOUli to not are question of nominal damages COUli has concluded that 112 failure the issue of quantum Supreme 103 a violation7 the causes and Roge award of money s of the trial reVIew novo appellate an plaintiffs injuries a accident that or allows Instances include elTOL conclusion that a Ms damages award against authority that cOUli supreme Richard seeks de Ms La 1986 Id at the hearing damages and on its the own 1 00 subsequent award of nominal because after the violation caused Southern did twice July 1999 without to Ms Richard she is entitled her proven losses and emotional distress n 20 435 Carey Ms Roge her on cannot they was attempt an erase the responsible personal impetus own compensatory damages against Ms to may include mental and injuries which U S at 263 no doubt that Ms had immediate and dramatic effects manifested themselves during her first opportunity for roughly five years Ms evaluations 2 employer academy emotional extensive 9 the program in June 64 n 20 98 S Ct at 1052 9 The record leaves LSU But academy To the extent that this violation resulted in anyone else consulting Roge for letter by Ms Roge s in trial that she undeliook Roge testified at retrospect these concessions do suggest In original violation itself for which fact of the injury admit her for further attempts re arose 1997 letter Ms Richard and the LSU immediately terminate the violation caused cure Ms to agreed 1998 and to not Roge December 19 Roge s Ms by Ms damages against The State plaintiffs on re the Richard to other problems stress a on Ms the five month admission job at 1 learned that her Roge s December 19 1997 letter to the plaintiffs period the constitutional rights After May 1998 threatened with termination by her employer condition that in positive was extent wellbeing that Southern where she received repOlied had 3 potential academies and to s between the letter and academy that she incapacitated her La R S her difficulties at the experienced mental from working for at officials who l3 5108 1 A l are accused of indemnify a covered individual against any claim demand petition seeking damages filed in any comi over alleged negligence or complaint other act by the individual including any demand under any federal statute when the act or that forms the basis ofthe the performance cause of action took of the duties of the individual 17 place while the s office or individual employment was engaged with the state least violating provides The state shall defend and suit and required medical attention for of Louisiana has extended indemnification to its or Richard in a one month in beginning January 1998 and for another in beginning April 1998 We thus conclude that Ms Richard has shown actual resulted directly from violation of Ms Ms Roge s Richard December 19 rights pursuant s injuries merit compensatOlY damages negated by LSD and admitting Ms Richard to the 10 had been done amounts to de novo legal error pursuant notes 7 Richard may the Mart to 8 at 16 thus this the sum jUlY or performance of her duties Ms Richard has concerning Ms as an lodged official an us to See supra compensation for the injuries 1997 at was written the time employee of LSD additional giving the damage conclude that Ms by jury personal in on She improper verdict appeal asselis f011n that mistakenly stated the standard for the award of punitive damages that Richard sought against of either 10 It also bears by II malice reporting Ms Richard s or Ms Roge The proper standard would be that LSU did not reconsider counsel in emphasis reckless indifference a May As noted supra at note 9 La R S 1 admitting 1998 letter addressed 13 5108 1 A I to a Roge Ms finding added pursuant Ms Richard until threatened with Ms the II assignment of error an Roge Ms engaged Roge s conduct during the time in question that the trial cOUli ened in by re question of damages lO OOO OO in she not reach this conclusion Rodriguez line of jurisprudence capacity although are decide the court may of these the wrong the letter acted under color of state law and in her writing individual cure a to failure S she suffered from the letter of December 19 who in 9 1983 well after the initial on Our review of the record leads recover S C to 42 D effOlis to academy later court and The trial 1997 letter which caused in and of themselves that Roge s subsequent Ms injuries that to the litigation 144 should operate to indemnify Ms Roge for her actions 18 statutOlY frameworkl2 and established jurisp1udence Nabors U S A Drilling verdict form eIToneous given Inc to the 130 F 3d 702 jUlY in the standard when it asked whether the conduct toward Ms Richard was 5th 710 at case See maliciously bar Barber g Cir 1997 an Roge s that Ms recklessly v The clearly contained jUlY found and e indifferent emphasis added While we agree that the trial court eITed in incorrect standard that any such our review of the record error was the December 19 composing or 4 reckless indifference The record does 1242 US C 981a b other than demonstrates that the malice or 1 a A conclude Roge s conduct in 1997 letter met the standard for either malice This concludes properly a in a to Ms appeal by failing person to subject view it to as an arm of suits for monetary punitive damages under this section against a political subdivision if the complaining party discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with complaining party may respondent engaged analysis with regard LSU recover govemment govemment agency with reckless indifference to the our issue in this at LSD asse1is that the trial court eITed respondent to of the evidence that Ms B and thus not us reflect any basis for Roge the sole individual defendant the state leads appeal an not hmTIlless finding by preponderance a 3 on providing the jUlY with or federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual emphasis added 13 This as harmless when it is trivial formal court has recently clarified the standard for harmless error in a civil merely academic and not prejudicial patiy assigning it 2001 1187 0605 La 5 2 03 14 pp and where it in 30 31 La App 842 So 2d 110 1 no way affects the final outcome of the 1 Cir 11 12 02 866 So 2d 837 860 61 case to En or has been defined the substantial rights ofthe case Duzon writ denied v Stallworth 2003 589 2003 1110 damages are intended to punish defendants whose violations rise to a particular level of egregiousness ill will or bad faith See Smith v Wade 461 U S 30 103 S Ct 1625 75 LEd 2d 632 1983 guard at reformatory for youthful offenders subject to punitive damages for ignoring plaintiff inmate s pleas for safety against violent attack and sexual assault by other inmates Williams v Kaufman sheriff subject to punitive damages for conducting extremely County 352 F3d 994 5th Cir 2003 invasive strip searches while executing search warrant of a nightclub Lincoln v Case 340 F 3d 283 5th Punitive landlord subject to punitive damages for outright racial discrimination deceit and trickery in warden treatment of potential tenants Lewis v Parish of Terrebonne 894 F2d 142 5th Cir 1990 to punitive medical and emotional needs of inmate who later subject damages for callous indifference to Brown v Byer 870 F2d 975 5th Cir 1989 deputy constable subject to punitive committed suicide for purposely changing infonnation on arrest warrant such that innocent person wrongfully damages Cir 2003 an ested 19 in state court under damages state would be federal comi immunity from protected the by S 198315 in the 1983 S same manner as at 66 67 Jordan 440 U S 332 of state sovereign 109 S Ct at 2309 10 70 72 340 See also 99 S Ct 1139 1145 Quern v 1979 Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand 542 So 2d 56 66 La An is entitled arm of a state 4 Cir App to same be not generate its own paid without having Jordan 415 U S 651 see also Hess 115 S Ct 394 Deloitte Corp v v Port freedom from suit as Neyrey v from which resources to resOli to the state long as 130 L Greater Baton 2d Ed a U S 5th Port Commision Rouge can and judgment might v 1974 513 U S 30 48 49 Corp 1994 245 381 F 3d 438 440 L L P it See Edelman treasury Trans Hudson Authority 1989 La 663 94 S Ct 1347 1355 56 39 L Ed 2d 662 404 05 Touche financial Reporters independent management authority show that it has little in the way of does 59 L Ed 2d 358 548 So 2d 1231 writ denied the monetary damages in principle Eleventh Amendment Will 491 U S for litigation of the an arm ex rei Barron Cir 2004 v Jacintoport 762 F 2d 435 439 5th Cir 1985 13 51 02 defines state agencIes Louisiana Revised Statutes board commission entity of the state writ denied provided this See 1995 0787 Training 1022 depmiment pp agency also Varnado 6 7 97 0312 La La and our App 3 27 any Louisiana state comi matter special district authority v Dep of 1 Cir 6 28 96 research has revealed to none any or other Employment 687 So 2d 1013 97 692 So 2d 394 jurisprudence 15 t as LSU has not support its asseIiion in but federal cases have Every person who under color of any statute ordinance regulation custom or usage of any State or TelTitory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law suit in equity or other proper proceeding for redress 20 that Louisiana unwaveringly detennined Board of through its 6 Louisiana vulnerable Supervisors public universities including to be treated as anns suit pursuant 17 S 1983 to The jury verdict s LSD of the State of LSD is correct in its asseliion that it is not As such to are s a against it person must be reversed c Whereas Ms Richard constitutional rights by Southenl against claims Title VII the on 1 show EEOC in the workplace E 17 2 1842 1 available 9 2000e 2 to fail of Trustees McGregor LSD raised this issue US c on its status A retaliation claim or at s awareness action thereafter and 4 Louisiana Bd v 1992 employer as 22 F 3d 621 La State Univ v of the a Bd 5th of The in the an arm of the requires the as plaintiff making participation an 3 an causal connection between protected paliicipation and the employment action W D La 1998 La D the employment Laxey rely 8 apply not paliicipation in conduct protected by the Act such the adverse See cannot suit under Title VII charge adverse 743 based that Title VII of the Civil protections provides against discrimination thus Southenl context state to evade 16 are her claims law state statutory immunities associated with S 1983 litigation do to Roge LSD and Ms against acting under color of persons based are Act of 1964 Rights s University protections that S 1983 offers against violations of individuals the on Southern Cir 1994 Boston Tanner v No Supervisors or 4328 91 slip conduct 29 F Supp 2d op at 6 n 14 1992 WL 189489 initially in its motion for summary judgment which was denied See supra p It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer 9 mandates a refuse to hire or to discharge any individual individual with respect to his compensation because ofsuch individual s race color religion tenns sex or otherwise conditions or national or to discriminate privileges of against any employment origin or employment in any way which employees applicants any individual of employment oppOliunities or otherwise deprive deprive adversely affect his status as an employee because of such individual s race color religion sex 2 to limit segregate would or 42 US C 9 or national 2000e or tend classify his or for to origin 3 a mandates unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his applicants for employment for an employment agency or joint labor management controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining including on the job training It shall be an employees or committee to discriminate against any individual or for a labor organization to discriminate against member thereof or applicant for membership because he has opposed any practice made an any unlawful employment practice by this subchapter or because he has made a charge testified programs assisted or participated in any manner in an subchapter 21 investigation proceeding or hearing under tins Harold S Lewis Jr and Elizabeth J Norman Law and Practice 2d ed Employment 43 142 The first and second elements of Ms Richard The record shows that Ms Richard filed after it issued what she believed January 1998 This was of Ms Richard they received a EEOC s copy of phone calls s to in as early s case The protected conduct as late us specifically aware of the Janumy 1998 when concerns the third and the extent to which Capt to an and whether Ms Richard has shown sufficient filing causation between her against Southern personnel would have been charge dispute pre ternlination notice in wrongful a not in other academies in F ebrumy 1998 amounted employment action adverse be The debate before same fourth elements of Ms Richard Johnson to s case are EEOC claim an clearly participation record also shows that Southern filing Discrimination the EEOC and charge Capt Johnson s phone calls In order to of Ms reVIew constitutes recent of her an Richard adverse case amounted to employment dismissing all of process and a error s action has subject to de matter Ms Richard s novo in the claims jUlY judgment that Rights pursuant to jury found S in tenninating her 22 thus of a treatment summer was of granted wrongful discharge Act of 1964 and her due S no 1983 After trial the no jury causation between Ms protected activity of filing EEOC charges and Southern employment action light review claims except for her to Title VII of the Civil equal protection changed reached trial in the motion for summary verdict fonn indicated that the Richard first detail the proper standard must such that the trial cOUli and shortly before the Southern filed claim pursuant legal we that the entire consideration of what asseIis Supreme COUli decision To recap 2005 analyze these issues Title VII s adverse violation had The trial comi declined to oveliurn the occurred Southern from any and all On that judgment comi to de perfOlTIl be discussed to U S review based on the new infra for retaliation claims Comi in Supreme novo Northern Burlington and her summary solely those to She seeks for this and less stringent standard the recently articulated by as Santa Fe 165 L Ed 2d 345 126 S Ct 2405 strictly telTIlinating actions in s verdict that released pOliion of the the reverse limited her Title VII claims associated with Southern s in the matter liability Ms Richard seeks to appeal jury Co Railway 2006 available White v at 2006 WL 1698953 Her basis for urgmg this represented by the trial the fact comi s use longer properly applicable v Fireman So 2d 742 745 fact in the finding s factfinding trier of fact we Clement or v may make an Bujol when de a Frey 95 on our law below the manifest Entergy 855 So 2d 968 3 4 novo no Maintenance 974 citing 650 La 2 20 95 review without any when there is legal error mistake of law forecloses the 1119 p 2 16 1 La review of the record Services Inc 23 that and 96 666 that the the error could have apply and we the facts from the record on error independent detemlination of v standard is concurring applied the inconect outcome pp only appropriate determine based affected the appeal is as enor 865 So 2d 724 727 94 1252 that error Industrial Bayou La 2 6 04 however legal oveliurned standard interdicted 1 Cir 9 26 03 App Co process So 2d 607 612 Lemmon 1 if La Fund Ins We note process Thus now v 2003 3200 deference to the fact finder implicit Levy 2003 0037 p 7 Hlrits denied 2003 3161 Ferrell of a process such that the usual manifest finding Service Inc level of review is that rule does not 2003 0492 2003 0502 p 17 La 5 25 04 922 Lemmon Louisiana Civil Law Treatise Vol 1 p 395 So 2d 1113 In fact such de facilitates the overall desirable So 2d If 165 66 at Xerox v review is novo Frank L Maraist and quoting See also Gonzales 1999 1975 1130 of goal however Civil Procedure preferred judicial in clear cut this In decision 501 So 2d 243 Hosp consideration 464 U S 816 that the new Harlaux v her associated with its decision Burlington Northern about circuits Northern were 126 S Ct at 2410 meet actionable a an an s Until that pmiicularly stringent ultimate retaliatory acts 24 Doctors v unless a denied cert Ms Richard urges here s decision in the trial Burlington comi Southern s summary solely Comi resolved employer to those s action split a must engagement in activity point rule VII or demanding such n as be to Burlington that the standard in the conduct comis within the Fifth employment decisio conduct to or her Supreme employee an against 1983 the anti discrimination substance of Title guided by action the how hamlful constitute retaliation for protected by to terminate comi be better generally La 1983 reverse Title VII claims to the given prospective and retroactive 86 to 320 application would produce Supreme Court applied retroactively judgment limiting federal 2d Ed it as 1 Cir 1986 App 602 604 2d So 104 S Ct 74 78 L rule articulated in the Northern be In 426 See Tabor initially that be to trial a testimony would its retroactive or inequitable results it is Harlaux effect La note we specifies otherwise substantial 247 cases Gonzales economy suited to resolve the conflict remand is necessary La 165 review of the record leads our first hand consideration of witness Memorial 14 14 320 So 2d 163 Corp conclusion that the evidence is in substantial conflict and that jmy with Harry T Circuit employer s which limits hiring granting leave and discharging promoting Eastman Kodak Co standard the trial 104 comi in 707 the here matter correctly s retaliation claims s decision in Mattern 1997 Under that the time at v limited circumstance of her to the in 2000 But the Court Supreme rejected this standard in favor of a less onerous show that the a reasonable have might dissuaded a must those be of that all or Id the Comi reminds is employer interference with mechanisms such discIimination concurrent Id a mere as the The that it unfettered right key to acts s that the a suppOliing place to s more at than anti retaliation Title VII perception a work and detelTent to file EEOC claims s or view the employer to the Act as must it well means trivial reaction access employee plaintiff the challenged action making The Comi then balanced this relative requirement a context minor annoyances that often take employees experience provIsIOn view In the Court Id at 2415 degree greater than a petty slights which in this reasonable worker from charge of discrimination action adverse our propounded by have found the employee would employer materially standard In effectively Northern Burlington Seventh and District of Columbia Circuits by citing 5th Cir F 3d 702 consideration of Ms Richard firing Id compensating prevent remedial s against suspected with the liberality or action of the employer be objectively reasonable within the by the facts reaction to the Id Clearly Burlington Concen1ing the Burlington Northern contains retroactively general nor do we rule Northern of impacts the retroactivity cited no 25 substantial matter above indication that it is discern any context we provided hand at note not to be that applied inequitable results that would result from retroactive when the to application Court handed down its Supreme in do the so based on Northern Burlington the by Levy to the Gonzales at hand remand is not claim EEOC us to Southern employee Burlington Northern and whether that would s see to we may element of credibility call requiring a by trial a comi as required us from de review novo provides ample as to an January 1998 employment action adverse materially employment that pursuant action was a to causally EEOC claim phone calls made in Johnson of Southern some rule new whether whether after she filed her subjected her connected to Ms Richard appeal consider the third and fourth elements of reasonable The whether to the The record is substantial and required was on See supra pp 22 23 retaliation claim s or such hindrances limit no documentation that allows Richard or evidence and witnesses and Tabor We conclude that Ms must determine analysis will require further fact finding first hand exposure which according novo we entirety of the record matter opinion In order to consider this matter de propounded this late January or early February 1998 by Capt other law enforcement program academies around the state in which he advised the other academies that Ms Richard had filed charges against 19 out of LSD Richard At blackballed course and would not be LSD s academy and perhaps even that she had been resulted in all of those academies that point essentially Ms from other academies where she achieve kept on POST at for several years with certification declining Richard was might be able to without POST Southern where she had been good perfonnance repOlis 26 to kicked admit Ms effectively complete the celiification she successfully employed It is hard to imagine how rational and reasonable objective any materially adverse action that Ms Richard has claim under the on would not employee the part of his her or perceive this employer as a We conclude successfully shown element three of her retaliation Northern standard of Burlington an employment adverse action The fomih and final element of to demonstrate a causal connection between the adverse and the exercise of element often 20 case what adverse in late hinges and does event a here so in the protected activity on as question is how this taken the adverse to Burlington to the not Ms Richard This case s as was to determining trigger for the retaliatory s phone other academies in early 1998 to held in the trial eventual tennination in calls Another by the resolution of the third phone calls made from Southern Northern may vary from by Southem Capt Johnson prong is affected plaintiff employment action at hand lies in problem should be deemed the employment action and as timing which The a in the context of Title VII early February of 1998 or which allows the well chronology employment action January of questions requires retaliation claim a prong be viewed court prior September 1999 Ms Richard s initial EEOC claim but it is not clear whether Southern 19 Capt Johnson admitted that he may have academies 20 against was aware actually used the term LSD was filed in 1996 May of that claim until December kicked out when he the other phoned 451 The array of cases on this subject highlights the extent to which the inquiry is fact based and requires Temporal proximity may vary greatly in analysis of the causation element but it seems generally that anywhere from days to months between the employee s protected action and the employer s adverse action will be close enough to meet the requirement but consideration of a totality of circumstances Houston 246 F3d 344 354 5th Cir year will likely be unacceptable See Evans v City of Oil Co 265 F 3d 357 362 6th Cir 2001 2001 five days deemed sufficient Little v BP Exploration three months deemed sufficient Smith v St Louis University 109 F 3d 1261 1266 1997 six months more than a to meet requirement passage of time weakens inference but does not by itself foreclose ability 162 F3d 795 803 4th Cir 1998 thirteen month interval too long to establish causation Balog v Continental BankBank of America Illinois 191 F 3d 455 allow inference of retaliation 27 7th Cir 1999 Causey v Caudillo fifteen months is too long to 1997 when Ms re Roge wrote her letter admit Ms Richard Based Ms on proceedings if she on believed to its Roge s 13 January letter Southern 1998 Ms Richard illegality of the January The record reflects that months after Ms claim calls Roge s These calls Butler SouthelTI Enforcement according Richard S as Februmy 9 1998 and filed a continued to The record deteriorated to 1998 when his against tennination proceedings in late she had been filing LSD Capt Johnson s over difficulties at the next two wrote to Thmman s clearly by Southern of to accept Ms Richards due academy SouthelTI its in the record her Ms again began this time job by suggesting to display Ms Richard employee threatened with tennination she save to 1998 claim with the EEOC to two her EEOC advising their representative of April documented unfairly tly less than Johnson had made the first of the series of Johnson litigations cavalier treatment an Director of Personnel and advised that the Acadian Law Capt These facts asking 13 1998 pre termination notice Academy in Lafayette refused to s 15 letter Janumy 27 protesting what she apparently took place pe110dically April a She also filed other academies in which he revealed Ms Richard to months until at least 21 early as with letter and less than two weeks after against Southern Capt LSD about on or responded year before pre termination commenced the program academy for against SouthelTI be the that LSD refused to stating academy due to the claims filed the another might attend EEOC claim to to Southenl Feeling that sought legal counsel against Southenl her almost an supeliors yet she that she might reflects that by this time Ms Richard s relations with her superiors at Southern had she had filed an unsuccessful grievance in August 1997 protesting what she some degree scheduling choices by Capt Johnson During the weeks immediately after Ms Roge s things seem to have become even more fractious to the point where Ms Richard and Capt Jolmson engaged in a confrontation before a meeting on January 5 1998 that resulted in an Ms Richard engaged At about this time early January 1998 offense repOli filed by campus police viewed as unfair December 1997 letter counsel who wrote to Southern threatening litigation 28 get a fresh start at another allowed letter as much in Februmy a language reveals s rid of Ms Richard At no was 25 mind s perhaps attending ever as Although In academy noted determining great attention must temporal proximity is Ms Richard Johnson an in attending another academy Richard s embodied in our de we in Ms Since the baned from the element of causation in be paid to facts university Title and circumstances charge against LSD was filed Johnson by SouthelTI Capt Roge s December We that prevented s over a phone through Ms Richard from find that the fomih element of Ms met review of the record Northern 1997 letter leads us to in light of the entitled had not previously in conduct to the sum of rule new conclude Ms Richard has find SouthelTI to be in violation of its to be a large component of the question early 1998 against employees engaging believe Ms Richard 22 but it is clear that of proof and her Title VII retaliation claim is valid of this conclusion retaliate novo Burlington met her burden at LSD Richard could be retaliation claim causation has been Thus getting almost unbroken chain of action from the time charge phone calls s a initial EEOC s the record reveals SouthelTI lemTIed of the Capt problems s Ms year before the adverse action taken calls up that Johnson felt free to explained why Capt anticipated that VII retaliation claim and nearly made the personnel director knew of and approved these revelations even any be Capt Johnson but 22 tell the other academies of Ms Richard and to director personnel own plan time has Southern Mr Butler the s 1998 letter to the director the Southern academy protected by the 5 000 00 in automatically terminated police officers duty In light not to statute and damages who failed the program effOJi should be made to get Ms Richard in another recognized post celiified program at the least cost to the university Ifthese programs deny admission to Ms Richard get letters from each and the first time we can an then temlinate her employment 29 D fees s by discretionary basis significant principal attorney non is as in the 482 U S that may 1983 9 on of case 755 as a cure or judgment F 2d 910 County 941 754 757 59 a s 933 declaratory judgment s 23 enforce or proceeding to or 2675 for but analysis or even Hewitt injunction 96 L Ed 2d 654 fees in these contexts is discretionmy to take attorneys Garment Co Christiansburg 434 U S a general rule a 412 417 on not Equal v 422 it 98 S Ct party who obtains the reversal prevailing pmiy a 9th Cir 1991 a title IX of Public Law 92 318 provision unless such reversal also Coral Constr citing 1989 90 Hanrahan Co v 64 L Ed 2d 670 the merits below in her on of this title 107 S Ct 2672 100 S Ct 1987 Ms Richard succeeded In any action The extent of the principal award is minimal ently of judgment for that pmiy resulted in 25 1978 is not appeal context a success on a the merits factors into the Commission 54 L Ed 2d 648 on clear some on deter constitutional and statutOlY violations yet We note also that 446 U S Title VII be awarded may policy to provide incentive Employment Opportunity of or 759 60 engender large damages awards 694 698 70 I recovery of reasonable plaintiff achieves Though awarding attorney highly encouraged cases the as award underlying pecuniary 1987 long so fees may be awarded if the Helms v Fees prevailing plaintiff which a issue within the or s s S 198323 and Title VII24 provide for Both attorney Attorney of sections 1981 S 1982 Hampton As 1980 1983 claim 1981a King v 1983 against 1985 Ms and 1986 the Religious Freedom Restoration 1681 et seq Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of2000 20 U S e the Religious 2000bb et seq 2000d et seq or 2000cc et seq title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U S C section 13981 of this title the court in its discretion may allow the prevailing party other than the United Act of 1993 42 U S e 42 USe reasonable attorney s fee as part of the costs except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for s jurisdiction any costs including attorney s fees unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer States a 42 U S C 24 1988 b In any action or proceeding under tlus other than the Commission party part of the person costs or subchapter the Uluted States the court in its discretion may allow the prevailing a reasonable attorney s fee including expert fees as and the Commission and the United States shall be liable for 42 U S e 2000e 5 k 30 costs the same as a private and has succeeded Roge in appeal on having the trial Southeln reversed and judgment entered Richard has earned the right attorney fees reconsidered s discretion standard v Assoc Eckerhart L Ed 2d 40 52 53 As individual we supra abuse of to the appeal on 919 F 2d 374 436 37 424 5th Cir 379 Ms award her to Contractors of Louisiana Builders 461 U S VII violation failure s dismissal of s Inc citing 1990 103 S Ct 1933 1941 Ms Richard 1983 claim 9 found capacity the jury increased cOUli s have found that award nominal of damages legally insufficient effOlis regardless of subsequent admitting Ms Richard to the academy The trial likely alternative association with Ms Richard abuse of discretion As we cOUli s s Richard damages zero As noted 1 00 compensate for the to Court in 25 The s n to analysis for attomey 950 F 2d 101 1939 light of 103 Northern s fees is the to to by re litigation seemed the award attOlney s fees in amounts to due to Ms Richard damages we early conclude additionally reasonable attOlney s fees in this claim new we have also found new the precedent established by s a employer Southern to for both 1983 and Title VII actions Hensley v Eckerhart 461 U S 424 1983 31 Supreme violation of Title VII standard amounted same citing the violation cure the merits of her claim 10 000 00 Ms Richard consider the 2d Cir 1991 7 76 L Ed 2d 40 on the provision by inability failure have increased the prevailing Burlington anti retaliation cOUli in LSU to program when counsel is entitled s association with her Likewise by success on in association with this violation to that Ms 76 in her Roge Ms violation but awarded a to against harm Ms Richard suffered at the time of the offense in late 1997 and 1998 v 1983 regards which the trial cOUli although it is subject Orleans Parish School Bd Hensley for its Title have the trial to cOUli legal Lyte 433 n v 7 s The trial error Sara Lee 103 S Ct upon Corp 1933 which Ms Richard attOlney VII fees s plaintiffs Southern entitled to we reasonable attorney There to community include a can number rate consideration of the on in which taking the case Louisiana Power the question required hindered the Light Co to prevailing s and as on as 1983 9 s and method lodestar multiplied by market rate novelty for a the which difficulty of or a the extent to litigate the claim and attOlney rights the Johnson factors the to this claim fees in civil hours prevailing acceptance of other work See Kellstrom 50 F 3d 319 323 24 v 5th Cir 488 F 2d 714 717 19 Georgia Highway Express v basis same damages associated with compensable on prevailing Title find that Ms Richard is entitled questions such the time and labor 5th As noted These include the of based jurisdiction Johnson we be calculated claim 1995 fees fees in association with her s hourly or s attorney 5 000 00 be determines the determined review her claim for including number of ways in which attOlney are a Title VII actions which novo have found the compensatOlY violation s de to Southe111 against case subject was are As plaintiffs entire s Inc Cir 1974 These types of analyses require fact intensive inquiries that undertaken here due We know to limitations within the record before only that in her application Richard listed her attorney as a listed credit card debt of Remand to the trial us to 10 000 00 that court for award attOlney damage awards or file creditor in the trial on justifiably warranted option but the lead to s fees appeal amount had the issue of attorney equal to Ms 32 legal fees s Ms expenses might be a judicial efficiency Richard 10 000 00 in association with the this time 41 226 99 and also gone for interests of equity and at pauper basis on a of us cannot be s compensatOlY 9 1983 violation committed Ms by and Roge violation committed 5 000 00 in association with the Title VII by SouthelTI CONCLUSION For the above and comi s judgment award to to 10 000 00 in Richard as as as as university reasons we an are damages and 10 000 00 in judgment costs and Ms The trial comi dismissed to attorney 2 46 985 attorney The trial s to judgment fees s comi Roge 478 4 in her individual reasons 19 judgment M against the to the Board Richard to Ms to Ms and A claims as s 5 000 00 in and foregoing appeal which total Melissa s The trial is amended to capacity Richard fees is awarded s in accordance with the above and associated with this follows follows Supervisors of Louisiana State University entity is reversed 5 000 00 in as Melissa Roge in her individual Supervisors of Southern University is reversed and rule amended the judgment is affirmed the Board of College foregoing to the of damages We render and assess the defendants capacity and 492 1 as 73 SouthelTI AMENDED REVERSED IN AND PART AFFIRMED REVERSED RENDERED 33 IN IN PART PART AS AMENDED AND JUDGMENT

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.