Gerac-Ogashi v. Iberia Medical Ctr

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-31412
Summary Calendar
JACKLIN GERAC-OGASHI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
IBERIA MEDICAL CENTER, formerly
known as Iberia General Hospital,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:96-CV-1604
June 5, 2001
Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jacklin Gerac-Ogashi appeals an adverse judgment following a trial on the

-- 1 of 4 --

1Iberia General Hospital has now become Iberia Medical Center.
2
merits. For the reasons assigned, we affirm.
In 1996, Ogashi sued her former employer, Iberia General Hospital,1 alleging
that, in violation of Title VII, the Hospital had engaged in the following unlawful
racially discriminatory acts: 1) wrongful discharge; 2) retaliation; 3) disparate
treatment; 4) failure to promote; and 5) hostile environment. After a three day
bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the defendant. Ogashi moved for a new trial
and recusation of both the trial judge and defense counsel. These motions were
denied. Ogashi timely appealed the final judgment and the denial of her post-trial
motions.
Ogashi detailed a prima facie case of discrimination. In response the
Hospital was required to come forth with a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for
her termination. It set forth evidence that Ogashi was terminated for abandoning her
post, including a patient in need of care. The burden then shifted to Ogashi to prove
that the reasons proffered were pretextual and that the true reason for her
termination was intentional discrimination. The trial court determined that while
Ogashi’s termination was handled poorly and unprofessionally, it did not rise to the
level of discrimination. The court further found that the weight of the evidence
clearly demonstrated that the hospital did not discriminate against Ogashi because of

-- 2 of 4 --

3
her race.
Ogashi has pending before us a motion to supplement the record on appeal
with transcripts and to authorize preparation of transcripts at government expense.
At the outset, we note that Ogashi has twice before brought such a motion before
this court in the case at bar. Both motions were denied. We again deny this motion,
finding again that she has not been granted leave to proceed IFP, and she has not
shown a need for the transcript. Ogashi was granted leave to supplement the record
previously with various documents which were submitted below to support her
motion for new trial and recusal. We find these documents and the remaining
appellate record sufficient for our determination of the merits of this appeal.
Accordingly, the motion to supplement the record and for a transcript at government
expense is DENIED.
Our review of the appellate record, briefs of the parties, and relevant law
persuades beyond peradventure that the trial court did not err in its judgment in
favor of the defendant. Accordingly, based on the factual analysis and authorities
cited in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law issued by the trial court on
July 9, 1999, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
After the judgment was issued, Ogashi moved for a new trial and recusation
of both the trial judge and defense attorney. Again, our review of the appellate

-- 3 of 4 --

4
record, briefs of the parties, and relevant law persuades that the trial court did not
err in denying this motion. Accordingly, based on the factual analysis and legal
authorities cited in the Memorandum Ruling issued on December 13, 1999, the
denial of this motion is AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --