TAMMY L. BRIGGS
FLORIDA PARISHES JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMISSION; FLORIDA PARISHES JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER
appeal from the Twenty-First Judicial District Court In and
for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana Docket Number
2015-0003649 Honorable Robert J. Burns, Judge Ad
J. Hogan, Jr. Counsel forHammond, LA Plaintiff/Appellant
Tammy L. Briggs
Randall L. Kleinman Counsel for Keene R. Kelley
Defendants/Appellee New Orleans, LA Florida Parishes Juvenile
Justice Commission and Florida Parishes Juvenile Detention
BEFORE: GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, AND CRAIN, JJ.
discharged employee appeals the dismissal of her petition
alleging racial and gender discrimination as being
prescribed. Finding no error in the trial court's
judgment, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
to her petition, the plaintiff, Tammy L. Briggs, was hired as
a cook at the Florida Parishes Juvenile Detention Center in
2006. On August 19, 2014, Ms. Briggs was terminated from her
employment for violating Detention Center rules and
procedures. Ms. Briggs later filed an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint with the Louisiana
Commission on Human Rights, alleging that her suspension and
subsequent termination were premised on racial and gender
August 19, 2015, the EEOC mailed a "Dismissal and Notice
of Rights" letter to Ms. Briggs, notifying her that
based on its investigation, it was unable to conclude that a
violation had occurred. The letter also included the
following "Notice of Suit Rights":
This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right
to sue that we will send you. You may file a lawsuit against
the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in
federal or state court. Your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN
90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice or your right to
sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for
filing suit based on a claim under state law may be
Briggs subsequently filed a petition against the Florida
Parishes Juvenile Justice Commission and the Detention Center
on December 8, 2015. After answering Ms. Briggs'
petition, the defendants raised the objection of prescription
by filing a peremptory exception, or in the alternative,
motion for summary judgment. The defendants asserted that Ms.
Briggs' claims of discrimination were subject to a
one-year prescriptive period under La. R.S. 23;3O3(D), and as
the last act of discrimination alleged by Ms. Briggs (her
termination) occurred on August 19, 2014, her lawsuit filed
on December 8, 2015, was untimely. Ms. Briggs opposed the
objection of prescription, arguing that under jurisprudence
interpreting La. R.S. 23;3O3(D), the prescriptive period
applicable to her claims was 18 months, not one year.
trial court heard the defendants' objection of
prescription urged pursuant to a peremptory exception, or in
the alternative, motion for summary judgment, on December 6,
2016. The trial court thereafter denied the alternative
motion for summary judgment, but granted the defendants'
peremptory exception urging the objection of prescription and
dismissed Ms. Briggs' claims with prejudice in a judgment
signed January 6, 2017. Ms. Briggs timely appealed the
judgment sustaining the peremptory exception raising the
objection of prescription.
issue before us in this appeal is simply the legal question
of whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied
La. R.S. 23;3O3(D) to find Ms. Briggs' claims prescribed.
That statute is found in the chapter known ...