United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
ALECIA M. RIDEAU, M.D.
LAFAYETTE HEALTH VENTURES, INC., ET AL.
PATRICK J. HANNA, MAG. JUDGE
A. DOUGHTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
here is Plaintiff Alecia M. Rideau, M.D.39;s
(“Plaintiff” or “Dr. Rideau”) Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 67]. Defendants
Lafayette Health Ventures, Inc. (“LHVI”);
Lafayette General Health System, Inc. (“LGHS”);
Lafayette General Medical Center, Inc. (“LGMC”);
and Al Patin (“Patin”), (collectively
“Defendants”), have filed an opposition [Doc. No.
74]. Plaintiff has filed a reply [Doc. No. 81].
following reasons, Plaintiff39;s motion is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rideau filed this lawsuit against Defendants under the Family
and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et
seq. (“FMLA”), alleging two claims for
relief: (1) interference under the FMLA, in that Defendants
illegally denied her FMLA leave; and (2) retaliation under
the FMLA, in that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for
exercising her FMLA rights, culminating in her termination
from employment. [Doc. No. 1].
Rideau is a radiologist whose specialty is interpreting
breast imaging. [Id. at ¶ 12]. From December 1,
2014, to September 1, 2016, Plaintiff worked at the Breast
Center at LGMC. [Id. at ¶ 13]. Dr. Rideau
alleges that, after she was diagnosed with breast cancer,
took FMLA leave to have a double mastectomy, complained about
retaliation associated with exercising FMLA rights, and
requested a second FMLA leave for breast reconstructive
surgery, Defendants terminated her employment. [Id.
at ¶¶ 14, 22, 34 and 35].
Dr. Rideau seeks partial summary judgment dismissing
Defendants39; affirmative defenses of after-acquired
evidence and failure to mitigate damages.
do not oppose dismissal of their after-acquired evidence
defense but do oppose dismissal of their mitigation of
damages defense. This matter is ripe for review.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), A[a] party may move
for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense--or
the part of each claim or defense--on which summary judgment
is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” The moving party bears the initial
burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion by
identifying portions of the record which highlight the
absence of genuine issues of material fact. Topalian v.
Ehrmann, 2d 1125');">954 F.2d 1125, 1132 (5th Cir. 1992); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (AA party asserting that a
fact cannot be . . . disputed must support the assertion by .
. . citing to particular parts of materials in the record . .
.). A fact is “material” if proof of its
existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of the
lawsuit under applicable law in the case. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 242');">477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute
about a material fact is “genuine” if the
evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could render a
verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
moving party can meet the initial burden, the burden then
shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact for trial. Norman v.
Apache Corp., 3d 1017');">19 F.3d 1017, 1023 (5th Cir. 1994). In
evaluating the evidence tendered by the parties, the Court
must accept the evidence of the nonmovant as credible and
draw all justifiable inferences in its favor.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. However, “a party
cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations,
unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of
evidence.” Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med.
Ctr., 3d 337');">476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.)