Andree' Ann Picou VS State to Louisiana, Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Office of State Police
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2009 CA 0344 ANDREE ANN PICOU VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF STATE POLICE A Judgment On Rendered OCT 2 3 200 Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No 524 883 Honorable Floyd Kay Bates J Falcon Jr Attorneys for Plaintiff Appellant Daniel L Avant Baton Rouge James D Judge Presiding Andree Ann Picou LA Buddy Caldwell Attorney General Scott G Vincent Attorneys for Defendant Appellee State of Louisiana Department of Public Assistant Attorney General Baton Rouge LA BEFORE Safety and Corrections Office of State Police CARTER C J GUIDRY PETTIGREW MCCLENDON AND HUGHES n T a 0 flew L 11 1 k 8 J Sv O tev RLtvO CARTER C J In this disability the granted in employment discrimination Andree Ann Picou plaintiff favor of the defendant appeals judgment summary evidence and to not shift the burden to rely merely on show that she would be able defendant the to meet to the thorough de issue is whether the to allegations her burden of to as disorder produce in the record trial that the proof at hire her hyperactivity then a novo police state ADHD discriminating and prohibited psychological a the defendant met its through the of State Police plaintiff and improperly and prejudicially failed dyslexia diagnoses and judgment support of its motion for pleadings cadet because of her attention deficit Our in alleged an summary Office The dismissing plaintiff s claim with prejudice presented sufficient evidence a on of Louisiana State Department of Public Safety and Corrections defendant based case and exam review of the evidence in the record reveals that initial burden of proof showing that there is an absence of factual support for several essential elements of plaintiff s claim i e that she suffers from the defendant failed defendant exam to improperly to any evidence have a conceived improperly developing the produce that limits her disability hire her because of her perceived her was a disability The entitled the defendant to summary plaintiff s arguments appeal to and that the to meet judgment the contrary 2 or that the plaintiff s failed role III failure thereafter plaintiff s that there remained material fact and that she would be able on alleged disability andor the defendant had exam showing major life activities that to a a genuine issue of her burden of proof at trial as are a matter of law without merit The Further we judgment signed and adequately excellent court s on the trial November 28 2008 finding of the judgment by appeal adopt discuss the factual analysis Courts of this agree with and are applicable summary Appeal Rule 2 assessed background 2A 16 law opinion 2 5 court that the of this 3 written reasons case Accordingly we and reasons for thoroughly provide an affirm the trial in accordance with Uniform Rules and 6 All against the plaintiff Andree AFFIRMED s costs associated with Ann Picou ANDREE ANN PICOU NUMBER 2009 CA 0344 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT FIRST CIRCUIT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF STATE POLICE BEFORE CARTER STATE OF LOUISIANA GUIDRY AND PETrIGREW JJ C PElTIGREW J DISSENTS PElTIGREW J dissenting I am of the humble AND ASSIGNS REASONS opinion the majority misses the point in this Department of Public Safety and Corrections Instead of a After Ms Picou of was her passing on psychological M PULSE test Ms Picou evaluation allegedly failing a psychological a conditional offer of evaluation and the defendants gave Ms Picou the M PULSE test advised she had failed The by drug screening a letter dated test called the July 30 2003 psychological test and the conditional offer employment were therefore withdrawn From the evidence introduced material issues of fact still in PULSE test is as a a psychological on the motion for summary evaluation psychological evaluation but liability potentiality and relies evaluation was Ms Picou was Its own creator Dr Davis does not liability risk assessment that is as a given a on psychological evaluation dispute I would reverse the math risk conditionally approved subject to had the judgment there are dispute in particular but not limited to whether the M based assessment of law enforcement candidates that of case successfully completed the with the Louisiana State Police and received employment predicated This judgment in favor of the State of Louisiana through the is before us on a summary preapplication process case Instead of an an actuarially actuarial prediction being given a psychological analysis which I believe is arbitrary since she a psychological evaluation Because there judgment provides identify it are of the trial court Ms Picou has never still material issues of fact in
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.
