The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALAN STUBBLEFIELD CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
FRANCISCAN MISSIONARIES OF OUR
LADY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL. NO. 20-00748-BAJ-RLB
RULING AND ORDER
As previously set forth, this action involves claims of unlawful employment
discrimination and defamation. Plaintiff Alan Stubblefield, a registered nurse,
alleges that between October 19 and October 27, 2019 he worked in the Cardiac
Intensive Care Unit at Our Lady of the Lake Hospital (OLOL), where he suffered
“sexual harassment” and “unwanted inappropriate sexual conduct.” (Doc. 20 at
11, 18-16). Plaintiff states that he reported this harassment, but instead of
investigating Plaintiffs allegations, Plaintiffs supervisors turned the table and
accused Plaintiff “of sexually abusing his ex-girlfriends],] ... of drug abuse, and ... of
having mental issues,” prompting Plaintiff to quit his job and seek employment
elsewhere. Ud. at 9 30-31, 34). Plaintiff alleges that, even then, OLOL’s abusive
conduct continued, in the form of defamatory reference letters to other hospitals in
the Baton Rouge area, stating that “Plaintiff reported to work at OLOL on drugs and
... In a mentally unstable condition.” Ud. at 35-38). Plaintiff alleges that these
letters caused him to lose jobs at Ochsner Medical Center and Bridgepoint Medical
Center. Ud. at 42-43).
Now OLOL moves for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs own
deposition testimony controverts many (if not all) of his material allegations, that
there is no evidence of Plaintiff ever suffering any harassment, discrimination, or
abuse at OLOL (much less reporting it), and that, in fact, Plaintiff—not OLOL—was
the culprit engaged in disturbing and potentially dangerous behavior during the time
period at issue. (Doc. 44; Doc. 44-1). Plaintiffs deadline to oppose has long since
passed with no response, despite Plaintiff having been expressly warned that silence
in the face of OLOL’s motion for summary judgment may result in the motion being
deemed unopposed.! (Doc. 56 at p. 1).
The summary judgment standard is well-set: to prevail, OLOL must show that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In making this assessment, the Court must
view all evidence and make all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff—the non-moving party. Owens v. Circassia Pharms., Inc., 33 F 4th 814, 824
(5th Cir. 2022). Even so, under the Federal and Local Civil Rules, Plaintiff must
counter with evidence to support his claims: “A non-movant will not avoid summary
judgment by presenting speculation, improbable inferences, or unsubstantiated
assertions.” Jones v. United States, 986 F.3d 318, 321 (5th Cir. 2019) (quotation
marks omitted); see also M.D. La. LR 56. To the point, summary judgment is required
if Plaintiff fails to “produce any summary judgment evidence on an essential element
1 At this point, it appears that Plaintiff has all but abandoned his case. In addition to failing
to respond to OLOL’s summary judgment motion, Plaintiff failed to appear at an April 12,
2023 hearing before the Magistrate Judge to discuss Plaintiffs efforts to obtain new counsel,
after Plaintiffs former attorney withdrew due to Plaintiffs failure to pay his fee. (Doc. 56 at
p. 3-5).
of his claim.” Geiserman v. MacDonald, 898 F.2d 787, 793 (5th Cir. 1990).
For Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim to survive, the evidence must
establish (among other things) a genuine dispute that Plaintiff suffered sex-based
harassment that “affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment.” Jones v.
PNK (Baton Rouge) P’ship, No. 16-cv-00848, 2018 WL 3430683, at *5 (M.D. La. July
16, 2018) (Jackson, J.). This requires harassment “sufficiently severe or pervasive [so
as] to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working
environment.” Jd. (quotation marks and alterations omitted). Having failed to oppose
OLOL’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff concedes the well-supported facts set
forth in OLOL’s Statement Of Uncontested Material Facts, M.D. La. LR 56(f),
including that all of his allegations of sex-based harassment are fabricated. At his
deposition, Plaintiff could “not recall’ any instances of inappropriate sexual
comments, (Doc. 44-2 at §{ 39, 49), and only vaguely described what he perceived as
sexually suggestive gestures, including other male and female nurses sitting
“inappropriately”—1.e., “with legs open”—and a female nurse bending over to pick up
something off the floor. (Ud. at 39-50). Even assuming that these incidents qualify
as sex-based harassment, they fall well short of establishing “conduct so egregious
as to alter the conditions of employment and destroy [Plaintiff's] equal opportunity
in the workplace.” Gibson v. Potter, 264 F. App'x 397, 400 (5th Cir. 2008). Absent any
evidence to the contrary, Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim plainly fails.
The same goes for Plaintiff's constructive discharge claim, which requires
evidence of “working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel
compelled to resign.” Finch v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 333 F.3d 555, 562 (5th Cir.
2003). Such conditions may be established upon adequate proof of “badgering,
harassment, or humiliation,” Barrow v. New Orleans S.S. Ass'n, 10 F.3d 292, 297 (5th
Cir. 1994), but again, Plaintiffs own testimony establishes that he was not subjected
to any sex-based harassment, much less the type of “intolerable” harassment required
to sustain his claim.
Plaintiffs disparate treatment claim fails, too, for different reasons. For any
disparate treatment claim to survive, Plaintiff must show evidence that he was
treated less favorably than his “similarly situated” colleagues. Willis v. Coca Cola
Enterprises, Inc., 445 F.3d 418, 420 (5th Cir. 2006). Here, there is no such evidence
whatsoever. (Doc. 44-2 at § 58).
Finally, Plaintiffs defamation claim. An actionable defamation claim requires
proof of “(1) defamatory words; (2) publication to a person other than the one defamed;
(3) falsity; (4) malice; and (5) resulting injury.” Hoffman v. Bailey, 257 F. Supp. 3d
801, 819 (K.D. La. 2017) (Jolivette Brown, J.) (quotation marks omitted). “If even one
of the required elements of the defamation tort is lacking, the cause of action fails.”
Id. Again, Plaintiffs claim is based on allegations that OLOL told prospective
employers that he “reported to work ... on drugs and ... in a mentally unstable
condition,” causing Plaintiff to lose jobs at Ochsner Medical Center and Bridgepoint
Medical Center. Now, however, Plaintiff “retracts” these allegations, stating that “[iJt
was not Our Lady of the Lake that spread these defamatory remarks. It was just
colleagues around.” (Doc. 44-29 at p. 67). Plaintiff even admits that these unnamed
colleagues “weren't any colleagues associated with Our Lady of the Lake.” (Id. at p.
68). Plaintiff also admits that nobody at OLOL ever accused him of abusing his ex-
girlfriend(s), drug abuse, or mental issues. (Id. at pp. 39-40). Finally, Plaintiff admits
that he was not fired from Ochsner or Bridgepoint, but instead resigned these
positions to seek better work opportunities in Dallas, Texas. (/d. at pp. 48,
50). Plainly, Plaintiffs defamation claim also fails.
Having failed to produce any evidence supporting essential elements of his
claims, Plaintiffs action must be dismissed. Geiserman, 893 F.2d at 793. Indeed,
going further, it now appears that the material allegations driving this dispute are
made up, or, at best, presented in a patently false light. Plaintiff is warned that any
future attempt to pursue litigation based on false and misleading allegations may
result in sanctions.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that OLOL’s Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 44)
be hereby GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's remaining claims be and are hereby
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Judgment shall issue separately. oh
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 105 “day of May, 2023
[|
JUDGE BRIAN A. Bat KSON
UNITED STATES SISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA