Rhodes v. Rouse's Ent LLC

*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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 9, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-30957
Summary Calendar
NADIA RHODES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROUSE’S ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 2:03-CV-1383-T)
_______________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court did not err in granting Rouse’s Enterprises’ motion for summary
judgment, as Rhodes failed to raise an issue of material fact. Rhodes admits and the
record is clear that at the time of her injury, Rhodes was not eligible for a leave of

-- 1 of 2 --

2
absence because she had not been with the company for six months. Rhodes also admits
that she was physically unable to perform her job, whether due to her pregnancy or her
on-the-job injury. The discrepancy in the record as to what date Rhodes was actually
terminated is not material to Rhode’s discrimination or retaliation claims. Rhodes failed
to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she did not identify a
nonpregnant employee who was granted leave under similar circumstances. See
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Finally, there was no
causal connection between Rhodes’ termination and her filing of a worker’s
compensation claim. AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --