# Ragona v. Louisiana Workforce Commission

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · September 27, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10194513

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** September 27, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10194513

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

MATTHEW RAGONA CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-CV-00960

VERSUS JUDGE DAVID C. JOSEPH

LOUISIANA WORKFORCE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSEPH H. L.
COMMISSION PEREZ-MONTES

MEMORANDUM RULING

Before the Court is a MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (“the Motion”) [Doc. 23]
filed by Defendant, Louisiana Workforce Commission. For the following reasons, the
Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 24, 2019, Matthew Ragona, (“Ragona” or “Plaintiff”), filed suit against
his former employer, the Louisiana Workforce Commission, (“LWC” or “Defendant”),
asserting employment discrimination claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). [Doc. 1 ¶ 2]. Plaintiff’s
claims stem from his allegations that the LWC wrongfully terminated his
employment when it failed to properly investigate a sexual harassment allegation
lodged against Plaintiff by another employee, and, further, that the facts underlying
the sexual harassment complaint were precipitated, at least in part, by his disability.
[Docs. 1 p. 1,3].
On September 15, 2020, Defendant filed this Motion for Summary Judgment
(the “Motion”) [Doc. 23]. Plaintiff then filed three motions for extension of time to file
a memorandum opposing summary judgment. [Docs. 25, 29, 36]. The Court granted
each of these requests, and Plaintiff ultimately filed his opposition to the Motion
nearly a year later, on August 30, 2021. [Doc. 39]. Both Defendant and Plaintiff
subsequently filed supplemental memorandums relating to the Motion with leave of

the Court. [Docs. 49, 52]. The Defendant’s Motion is now ripe for ruling.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a male with a physical disability, cerebral palsy, began working for
the Louisiana Workforce Commission as a “Workforce Development Specialist 2” on
December 8, 2014. [Doc. 1 p. 2]. On May 14, 2018, Plaintiff’s co-worker, Heather
Daigrepont (“Daigrepont”), told a co-worker, Tony Vets (“Vets”), that certain

interactions she had with Plaintiff were causing her concern. [Doc. 43 p. 34]. Vets
advised Daigrepont to write down a summary of the incidents. [Doc. 45 p. 29].
Daigrepont took this advice and sent a copy of her written statement to Vets. [Doc.
43 p. 32]. Upon reading Daigrepont’s statement (the “Daigrepont Statement”), Vets
believed that the allegations constituted a formal complaint of sexual harassment
and forwarded it to his immediate supervisor, Barbara Leach. [Doc. 45 p. 31]. Leach
then forwarded the statement to her supervisor, who then sent the statement to

LWC’s Human Resources Department. [Doc. 47 p. 22].
In the statement, Daigrepont recounted events between her and the Plaintiff
that she described as a “cause for concern.” [Doc. 39-7 p. 21]. Particularly, Daigrepont
claims that Plaintiff “whistled” at her as she was leaving work one day. [Doc. 39-7 p.
21]. Daigrepont also described an incident wherein Plaintiff gave her a gift in the
parking lot after work. [Doc. 39-7 p. 21]. Daigrepont then “thanked” Plaintiff for the
gift by giving him a “proper side hug, facing away from him,” at which point Plaintiff
allegedly pulled her closer and kissed her on the neck causing her to feel “immediate
violation.” [Doc. 39-7 p. 21]. On May 31, 2018, shortly after the Daigrepont Statement

was provided to LWC’s Human Resources Department, LWC terminated Plaintiff’s
employment. [Doc. 39-7 p. 26].
Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Louisiana Commission on Human Rights
alleging discrimination based on sex and disability. [Doc. 42-1 p. 9]. Plaintiff received
a right to sue letter from the EEOC dated April 25, 2019, and timely filed suit in this

Court. [Doc. 1 p. 4].
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
A court should grant a motion for summary judgment when the pleadings,
including the opposing party’s affidavits, “show that there is no dispute as to any
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. Pro. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). In
applying this standard, the Court should construe “all facts and inferences in favor

of the nonmoving party.” Deshotel v. Wal-Mart Louisiana, L.L.C., 850 F.3d 742, 745
(5th Cir. 2017); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (“The
evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be
drawn in his favor.”). As such, the party moving for summary judgment bears the
burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to issues
critical to trial that would result in the movant’s entitlement to judgment in its favor,
including identifying the relevant portions of pleadings and discovery. Tubacex, Inc.
v. M/V Risan, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1995). The court must deny the moving
party’s motion for summary judgment if the movant fails to meet this burden. Id.

If the movant satisfies its burden, however, the nonmoving party must
“designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. (citing
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323). In evaluating motions for summary judgment, the court
must view all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). There is no genuine
issue for trial – and thus a grant of summary judgment is warranted – when the

record as a whole “could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving
party....” Id.
DISCUSSION
The Motion seeks summary judgment on each of Plaintiff’s claims of gender
and disability discrimination. The Court addresses each claim in turn.
A. Gender Discrimination Claim
i. Arguments Before the Court

Plaintiff’s allegations in the Complaint center around his contention that LWC
disregarded its own sexual harassment policy when it failed to conduct a proper
investigation into the Daigrepont Statement. [Doc. 1 p. 3]. Plaintiff further claims
that if an investigation had been conducted it would have revealed that inappropriate
behavior and jokes by his co-workers, specifically female co-workers, were an
“accepted practice at LWC.” [Doc. 1 p. 3].
In the Motion, Defendant seeks summary judgment based on its argument that
Plaintiff’s allegations and the underlying facts do not establish a prima facie case of
gender discrimination. [Doc. 23-1 p. 6]. Defendant also maintains that Plaintiff

cannot show that he was treated less favorably than other similarly situated female
employees or that his termination was a pretext for discriminatory animus. [Doc. 23-
1 p. 6-7].
In response, Plaintiff claims that his termination resulted from “purposeful
discrimination and harassment” and that there are, at a minimum, genuine issues of
fact as to whether similarly situated employees were retained by LWC despite similar

conduct. [Doc. 39-2 p. 15]. In support, Plaintiff maintains that he had “an impeccable
employment history” and claims that similarly situated female co-workers engaged
in more egregious behavior than Plaintiff’s alleged conduct. [Doc. 39-2 p. 15]. Plaintiff
maintains that he was treated differently than these similarly situated female co-
employees because he was not notified of the sexual harassment complaint and was
not provided certain due process protections articulated in LWC’s Sexual Harassment
Policy. [Doc. 39-2 p. 15].

Additionally, Plaintiff claims that the reasons Defendant provided for his
termination were pretextual. [Doc. 39-2 p. 18-19]. In support, Plaintiff maintains
that the first reason provided for his termination, i.e., that it was a “layoff,” is
pretextual because his department was, in fact, “shorthanded” during the relevant
period. [Doc. 39-2 p. 18]. Plaintiff claims that the other reason given for his
termination, i.e., the sexual harassment complaint, was pretextual because “even a
cursory review of the facts” would lead to the conclusion that none of Plaintiff’s
conduct “was even arguably unwelcomed.” [Doc. 39-2 p. 19].
ii. Prima Facie Case

A claim of discrimination can be shown either through direct or circumstantial
evidence. Turner v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 675 F.3d 887, 892 (5th Cir. 2012), as
revised (June 22, 2012) (citing Russel v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219, 222
(5th Cir. 2000)). In the absence of any direct evidence,1 the plaintiff must use
circumstantial evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the
McDonnell Douglass framework. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. 411 U.S. 792

(1973); see also, Turner, 675 F.3d at 892. To defeat summary judgment, the
McDonnell Douglas standard requires a plaintiff to show that he: (i) belongs to a
protected class; (ii) was qualified for the position; (iii) was subject to an adverse
employment action; and (iv) was replaced by someone outside the protected class or
was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees that are outside
the protected class. Wright v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. (Ohio), 842 F. App'x 869, 872
(5th Cir. 2021).

Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff is a male, that he was qualified for his
position as a “Workforce Development Specialist 2,” and that he was subject to an
adverse employment action when he was terminated. The focus of the Court’s
inquiry, then, is on the fourth element, i.e., whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that

1 Plaintiff has neither alleged nor submitted to the Court any direct evidence of gender
discrimination in response to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was treated less favorably
than similarly situated female employees.2
Employees are considered similarly situated when they have “held the same

job or responsibilities, shared the same supervisor or had their employment status
determined by the same person, and have essentially comparable violation histories.”
Garcia v. Pro. Contract Services, Inc., 938 F.3d 236, 244 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Lee
v. Ks. City Rwy. Co., 574 F.3d 253, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009)). Once similarly situated
employees are identified, the Plaintiff must also show that the alleged conduct
leading to his adverse-employment decision is “nearly identical” to the comparable

history of similarly situated employees who did not receive the same treatment. Id.
Plaintiff claims that he and his female co-employees have comparable violation
histories because, “similarly situated female employees at LWC participated in
inappropriate conversations and conduct, but only Plaintiff, who did not participate
in this behavior, and who strived to be friends with everyone, was singled out.” [Doc.
1 p. 3]. However, the only evidence supporting this claim is Plaintiff’s own testimony,
which is not substantiated by any documentary evidence nor by the testimony of any

of his co-workers.3 [Doc. 42 p. 200] [Doc. 44 p. 36-37]. Further, there is no evidence

2 Plaintiff has neither alleged nor submitted to the Court any evidence that he, “was
replaced by someone outside the protected class,” the first part of the McDonnell Douglas
framework’s fourth requirement.
3 In his deposition, Plaintiff testified that “…many of the women there, because they
were trying to be nice to me, would often say risqué or ribald things that I thought went
beyond what you should say at work.” [Doc. 42 p. 200]. In contrast, one of Plaintiff’s co-
workers answered “no” when he was asked if it was common for “jokes with sexual overtones
to be made in the office,” or if those types of jokes were tolerated in the office. [Doc. 44 p. 36-
37].
in the record that the LWC’s Human Resources Department received complaints of
sexual harassment pertaining to any similarly situated female employees.4 [Doc. 46
p. 67] [Doc. 47 p. 32]. Because: (i) LWC received a formal sexual harassment

complaint against Plaintiff, but not against any of his similarly situated female co-
workers and, (ii) there is no other evidence supporting Plaintiff’s claim that other
employees engaged in similar conduct, Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that he was
treated less favorably than similarly situated employees of a different gender.5
Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case of gender discrimination.
iii. Employer’s Legitimate Non-Discriminatory Reason

Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of gender
discrimination under these facts, summary judgment is nonetheless appropriate
because Plaintiff fails to carry his burden of showing a pretextual reason for his
termination.
It is well established that once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of
discrimination, the burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that there

4 One of Plaintiff’s supervisors testified in his deposition that the sexual harassment
complaint against Ragona was the first he had received. [Doc. 46 p. 67]. Plaintiff’s direct
supervisor also testified that she had never received any other complaints of sexual
harassment. [Doc. 47 p. 32].

5 Plaintiff also alleges that the failure of Defendant to follow its internal Sexual
Harassment Policy when the complaint against him was received is “indicative of
discriminatory motive.” [Doc. 52 p. 11]. To support this claim Plaintiff asserts only that,
“[o]ne has a hard time believing that if Ragona was female, he would not have been provided
all of these protections,” and that “Ragona was male and Daigrepont was female – clearly
gender motivated the Defendant’s actions.” [Doc. 39-2 p. 15]. Unsubstantiated assertions,
conclusory allegations, and speculation are insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden.
Grimes v. Texas Dept. Of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 102 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir.
1996.
was a legitimate business reason for the adverse employment action. Wright v.
United Parcel Serv., Inc. (Ohio), 842 F. App'x 869, 872 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing
McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802). “The burden on the employer at this stage ‘is

one of production, not persuasion; it can involve no credibility assessment.’ ” Alvarado
v. Texas Rangers, 492 F.3d 605, 611 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson
Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142 (2000)).6 If the employer can show there was
a legitimate, non-discriminatory, reason for the adverse-employment action, the
burden then shifts back to the plaintiff who is required to establish that this provided
reason was a pretext for discriminatory motives. Myles v. TPUSA-FHCS, Inc., 2020

WL 6276957 at *3 (W.D. La. 2020). A Plaintiff may demonstrate pretext by showing
that a discriminatory motive more likely motivated the employer's decision, such as
through evidence of disparate treatment, or by establishing that the employer's
propounded legitimate business reason is unworthy of credence.7 Id. To survive a
motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must produce substantial evidence of
pretext. Auguster v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 249 F.3d 400, 402–403 (5th Cir.
2001). “Conclusory statements” or a “subjective belief of discrimination” are not

considered sufficient evidence that could show pretext of discrimination. Id. See also,

6 “Although intermediate evidentiary burdens shift back and forth under this
framework, ‘[t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant
intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.’ ”
Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143 (quoting Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253
(1981)).
7 The employer’s legitimate business reason can be considered “unworthy of credence”
if “it is not the real reason for the adverse employment action.” Stump v. City of Shreveport,
2015 WL 5794474 at *10 (La. W.D. 2015) (quoting Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572, 579 (5th
Cir)).
Myles, 2020 WL 6276957 at *5 (quoting Lawrence v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at
Galveston, 163 F.3d 309, 313 (5th Cir. 1999)).
Here, LWC provides two reasons for Plaintiff’s termination – that he was “laid

off” and that his employment was terminated because of the sexual harassment
complaint. [Doc. 39-2 p. 17]. Accordingly, the burden shifts back to Plaintiff to show
that these proffered reasons were only a pretext for terminating him based on his
gender. In doing so, Plaintiff must present evidence to rebut each nondiscriminatory
reason produced by the employer. Haire v. Bd. of Sup’rs of Louisiana State Univ.
Agric. & Mech. Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363 (5th Cir. 2013) (emphasis added).

Here, Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence that would show Defendant’s
termination of his employment was more likely related to his gender than the sexual
harassment complaint. In this regard, Plaintiff does not present any summary
judgment evidence of disparate treatment related to his gender or that LWC’s
proffered reason for his termination is unworthy of credence. Instead, Plaintiff
merely argues that the Daigrepont Statement could not be considered a complaint of
sexual harassment because “even a cursory review of the facts would show that there

was no intent to harass by Ragona,” and that there was no conduct that was even
arguably “unwelcomed.” [Doc. 39-2 p. 19].
It is important to note here that the ultimate facts behind the allegations made
in the Daigrepont Statement are largely immaterial to this Court’s evaluation of the
legitimacy of the business reasons proffered by the LWC for Ragona’s termination. It
is undisputed that the Daigrepont Statement was sent by Plaintiff’s supervisors to
Human Resources. Defendant then considered this a complaint of sexual harassment
and sufficient grounds for Plaintiff’s termination. Though an employer’s decision may
be based on incomplete information or seem unfair in retrospect, that does not make

the decision discriminatory. See Nieto v. L & H Packing Co., 108 F.3d 621, 624 (5th
Cir. 1997) (“Title VII does not protect an employee against unfair employment
decisions; instead, it protects against employment decisions based upon
discriminatory animus.”). Instead, the Court must evaluate LWC’s decision at the
time the employment decision was made, without the advantage of hindsight. See
Walton v. Bisco Industries, Inc., 119 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 1997) (“[W]e do not view

the discrimination laws as vehicles for judicial second-guessing of business
decisions.”). Although seemingly raising a legitimate dispute regarding the fairness
of the process LWC used in making its decision to terminate him, Plaintiff has not
shown that this decision was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. Because
Plaintiff fails to show that the second reason for his termination provided by
Defendant, the sexual harassment complaint, was either more likely motivated by
discriminatory intent or unworthy of credence, the Court need not evaluate whether

LWC’s claim to have “laid off” the Plaintiff was pretextual.
Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment in Defendant’s favor as to
Plaintiff’s Title VII gender discrimination claim.
B. Disability Discrimination Claim
i. Arguments Before the Court
Plaintiff suffers from cerebral palsy, which the parties agree qualifies as a

disability under the ADA. Because of his medical condition, Plaintiff alleges that he
has had a dearth of close relationships and may have misperceived Daigrepont’s
actions towards him, resulting in his apparently mistaken belief that his “continued
friendliness [towards Daigrepont] was welcomed.” [Doc. 1 p 2]. Additionally, Plaintiff
alleges that his disability hampered his ability to perceive Daigrepont’s apparent
discomfort with his actions.

Defendant seeks summary judgment on these claims based on its contention
that Plaintiff can neither provide direct evidence of discrimination based on disability
nor produce evidence that supports the claim of a causal connection between his
disability and his termination from employment. [Doc. 23-1 p. 4]. Further, Defendant
argues that even if Plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of discrimination, he is
unable to show that LWC’s reason for terminating his employment was pretextual.
[Doc. 23-1 p. 4].

In response, Plaintiff claims that he can meet his burden of establishing a
prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA. [Doc. 39-2 p. 16].
Plaintiff asserts that he can at least create a genuine issue of fact as to a connection
between his termination and his disability. [Doc. 39-2 p. 16]. Plaintiff suggests that
the reasons provided by Defendant for his termination are a pretext for
discrimination. [Doc. 39-2 p. 18-19]. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that the reasons
given for his termination, i.e., “layoff” and a complaint of sexual harassment are both
not credible. [Doc. 39-2 p. 18-19].
ii. Prima Facie Case

Under the ADA, it is unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against a
qualified individual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). If a plaintiff
claims discrimination under ADA but cannot put forth any direct evidence8 of
discrimination, he must use the McDonnell Douglass framework to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination. Caldwell v. KHOU-TV, 850 F.3d 237, 241 (5th Cir. 2017)
(citing McDonnell Douglas Corp at 802); see also Kittling v. Boise Cascade, LLC, 2020

WL 1979894 at *3 (W.D. La. 2020). The McDonnell Douglass framework requires the
plaintiff to establish that he: (i) had a disability or was regarded as disabled; (ii) was
qualified for the job; and (iii) was subject to an adverse employment decision because
of his disability. Id.
Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff has the disability of cerebral palsy and
that he was qualified for his position as a “Workforce Development Specialist 2.”
Plaintiff, therefore, need only prove the third requirement under the McDonnell

Douglas framework and show that he was subject to an adverse employment action
because of his disability.
In support of a causal connection between his termination and disability,
Plaintiff states that his disability causes “awkwardness in social interactions.” [Doc.

8 Plaintiff has neither alleged nor submitted to the Court any direct evidence of
disability discrimination in response to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
39-2 p. 16]. Plaintiff further claims that due to his disability he “has not had many
relationships in the past,” which caused him to misperceive Daigrepont’s actions,
ultimately leading to her written statement. [Doc. 1 p. 2]. Further, Plaintiff claims

that “it was never made clear to him if his actions or his disability led to the
Daigrepont Statement.” [Doc. 39-2 p. 11]. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that he was
the only disabled employee of Defendant. [Doc. 39-2 p. 16].
Each of these contentions fail for lack of evidence. Apart from his subjective
belief, Plaintiff has failed to make any showing that his disability motivated the
Daigrepont Statement. Daigrepont’s written statement does not mention Plaintiff’s

disability nor is there any evidence in the record that Plaintiff’s disability impacted
Daigrepont’s decision to write the statement. Further, Plaintiff provides no evidence
that the LWC was motivated by Plaintiff’s disability when it terminated Plaintiff’s
employment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim that he was terminated because of his
disability is only supported by the conclusory and unsupported allegation that his
disability had a causal connection to the sexual harassment complaint.9 See Topalian
v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 (1992) (“Mere

conclusory allegations are not competent summary judgment evidence, and they are
therefore insufficient to defeat or support a motion for summary judgment.”) (citing

9 In his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he believed Daigrepont “targeted” him
because he had a disability and that in terminating him, Defendant “felt that [he] would be
an easy target…because [he is] physically disabled.” [Doc. 42 p. 1117 and 193]. Besides this
speculative statement, Plaintiff provides no evidence demonstrating that his disability had a
role in Defendant’s decision to terminate him.
Galindo v. Precision American Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985); United
States v. An Article of Drug, 725 F.2d 976, 984—85 (5th Cir. 1984)).
Because Plaintiff provides no evidence that his disability had any causal
connection to his termination, he has failed to meet his burden of establishing a prima
facie case of discrimination. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment in
Defendant’s favor as to Plaintiffs claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment [Doc. 23] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims asserted by Plaintiff against LWC
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
THUS, DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on this 27th day of September 2021.
Chord C Laeets
DAVID C. JOSEPH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10194513. Public record. Not legal advice.