LaCaze, et al v. W W Grainger Inc, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
March 16, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-30829
CINDY L. LACAZE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
W. W. GRAINGER, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(5:03-CV-2202)
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Cindy L. Lacaze, who suffers from muscular
dystrophy, brought this action against Defendant-Appellee W. W.
Grainger, Inc., alleging disability discrimination and retaliation.
With the assistance of her brother who was an employee of Grainger,
Lacaze —— an employee of Kelly Temporary Services (“KTS”) —— was
furnished to Grainger to fill a temporary vacancy when Jonathan
Williams, a permanent Grainger employee, was shifted on an interim
basis to cover a vacancy at a different Grainger location. When

-- 1 of 2 --

2
that assignment was over and Williams returned to the Grainger
location where Lacaze was filling in for him, he was reinstated in
that job and, because her services were no longer needed in that
position and no other suitable vacancies existed there, Lacaze’s
services as a KTS “temp” at this Grainger location came to an end.
The district court granted Grainger’s motion for summary
judgment and dismissed Lacaze’s action in its entirety, thereby
disposing of all her state and federal claims with prejudice. This
appeal followed.
We have carefully reviewed the comprehensive opinion of the
district court, as well as the record on appeal and the appellate
briefs of the parties. As a result, we are satisfied that the
district court’s summary judgment in favor of Grainger was properly
granted on all claims. Essentially for the reasons set forth by
the district court, summary judgment from which Lacaze appeals is,
in all respects,
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --