Jay v. International Salt Co., 88-4751

• Citation: 868 F.2d 179
• Decision Date: 24 March 1989
• Docket Number: No. 88-4751,88-4751
• Parties: 49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 629, 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,860 Lester L. JAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL SALT CO., and Akzo America, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Page 179

868 F.2d 179

49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 629,

49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,860

Lester L. JAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL SALT CO., and Akzo America, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-4751

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

March 24, 1989.

Christopher L. Zaunbrecher, Jeansonne & Briney, Lafayette, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Steven R. Blackburn, Nashville, Tenn., George Arceneaux, III, Liskow & Lewis, Lafayette, La., Martha C. Perrin, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before KING, JOHNSON, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Lester L. Jay appeals from an order of the district court granting a summary judgment on Jay's claim of age discrimination in favor of defendants International Salt Company and the parent company of International Salt, AKZO America, Inc. (hereafter collectively referred to as ISC). 694 F.Supp. 207. We affirm.

I.

In May 1985, plaintiff Lester L. Jay was sixty years old and serving as mine manager for ISC at its Avery Island Salt Mine in Louisiana. It was at this time that ISC officials informed Jay of their decision to replace him as mine manager with a younger individual and to appoint Jay to the position of "general manager--mining and planning." ISC ultimately replaced Jay as mine manager of the Avery mine in August 1985.

In his new position as general manager of mining and planning, Jay maintains that, among his other duties, he was charged with compiling a history of the usage of certain equipment at the Avery mine, serving as manager of the ISC solar operation at Bonaire, Netherland's Antilles, and consulting with and advising ISC personnel on mine projects and issues. In granting a summary judgment in favor of ISC in the instant case, however, the district court found that Jay in fact performed "very few job activities in his new position." Regardless of the exact nature of Jay's responsibilities in his new position, Jay did testify to the district court that he believed ISC gave him the new position as general manager of mining and planning to allow him to "save face." Jay also testified that he believed he would ultimately be retired. Jay continued to receive payroll checks until December 31, 1986; on that date, Jay elected to collect the remainder of his severance benefits in a lump sum and to begin receiving pension benefits.

Thereafter, on July 31, 1987, Jay filed the instant suit against ISC on the basis that ISC's actions in terminating his employment violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 621, et seq., and the Louisiana Age Discrimination in Employment Act, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 23:971, et seq. ISC subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on both the federal and state claims which the district court granted. Jay now appeals only that portion of the district court order pertaining to the Louisiana Age Discrimination in Employment Act (LADEA). ¹

II.

On appeal, Jay raises a legal challenge to the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of ISC, contending that the district court erroneously applied a one year statute of limitations to his LADEA claim instead of the three year statute of limitations for actions to recover compensation for services rendered contained in La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 3494 (West 1989). Additionally, Jay argues that the district court erred in granting a summary judgment in favor of ISC on his LADEA claim since a factual dispute exists over whether ISC communicated to Jay clear, unequivocal notice of its intent to terminate Jay in May 1985, thereby triggering the applicable statute of limitations for filing a LADEA claim. Finally, Jay asserts that a factual dispute exists over whether ISC, by their actions, induced Jay to refrain from filing suit against ISC within the applicable prescriptive period.

Addressing first Jay's contention that the district court applied an incorrect prescriptive period to his claim of age discrimination under the LADEA, we are guided by the recent decision of this Court in Williams v. Conoco, Inc., 860 F.2d 1306 (5th Cir.1988). In Williams, this Court determined the appropriate statute of limitations for a claim of racial discrimination in employment brought pursuant to La.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 23:1006(B)(1). Characterizing such a claim of racial discrimination as a tort, this Court concluded that such discrimination claims are therefore governed by La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 3492 which provides that "[d]elictual actions are subject to a liberative prescription of one year. This prescription commences to run from the day injury or damage is sustained." Williams, 860 F.2d at 1307. Persuaded that no meaningful distinction exists between the claim in the Williams case of racial discrimination in employment and the claim in the instant case of age discrimination in employment, we likewise conclude that the instant claim brought by Jay constitutes a tort claim which is properly governed by the one year presriptive period contained in article 3492.

Having determined that the...