Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-24-2022
Case Style:
Dorman J. David v. Entergy Utility Enterprises, Inc., f/k/a Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
Case Number: 3:19-cv-848
Judge: Kristi H. Johnson
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Hinds County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: Jackson, Mississippi employment law lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a job discrimination theory based on his age.
In the employment context, “[t]o succeed on a claim of intentional discrimination . . . a plaintiff must first prove a prima facie case of discrimination.” Wallace v. Tex. Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 (5th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). In discrimination cases, plaintiffs may present a prima facie case either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence using the McDonnell Douglas analysis. Nall v. BNSF Ry. Co., 917 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2019) (Title VII); Evans v. Houston, 246 F.3d 344, 350 (5th Cir. 2001) (ADEA). Davis proceeds with the latter- circumstantial evidence. So Davis can establish a prima facie case for employment discrimination by showing that he “(1) is a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified for the position at issue; (3) . . . suffered some adverse employment action by the employer; and (4) . . . was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees outside the protected group.” Fahim v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 551 F.3d 344, 350 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551, 556 (5th Cir. 2007)).
Outcome: The Court has considered all the arguments set forth by the parties. Those arguments not addressed would not have changed the outcome of the Court's decision. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Entergy's Motion for Summary Judgment [71]. The Court grants Entergy's motion as to Davis's discrimination claims under Title VII and the ADEA, his retaliation claims under the same, and his state infliction of emotional distress claims. The Court DISMISSES Davis's Title VII and ADEA claims and Davis's state NIED and IIED claims.
Finding genuine issues of material fact exist as to Davis's remaining wrongful discharge claim, the Court denies summary judgment on this claim and related requests for damages.
The Court further DENIES AS MOOT Davis's Motion to Strike Evidence Concerning Casinos [75].
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: