Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D. La.: Employee’s Title VII hostile work environment and discrimination claims may move forward, (Aug 11, 2025)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

However, employee’s Title VII sex-based discrimination claim was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

A federal district court in Louisiana held that an African American’s claims of hostile work environment and discrimination under Title VII survived his employer’s motion to dismiss. However, his sex-based Title VII was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his EEOC charges. The court dismissed the employee’s state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress as failing to allege that the employer’s actions were extraordinarily extreme and outrageous, as required under Louisiana law. The court also dismissed the employee’s claim for sexual battery as nothing in the Louisiana criminal law provision gave a private right of action. Additionally, the court dismissed the employee’s loss or consortium claim as not cognizable in an employment discrimination claim (Fernandez v. American Sugar Refining, Inc., No. 25-772 (E.D.La. Aug. 8, 2025)).

Following the termination of his employment by his employer, American Sugar Refining, the employee, an African American male, alleged discriminatory treatment because of his race. The employee alleged that other employees of the employer made racially offensive remarks, engaged in unwanted touching, and started rumors about his mental health ailments as a pretext for his termination.

Following his termination, the employee sued the employer alleging ten claims: (1) race discrimination and harassment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (2) race and sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (3) disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act; (4) race discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981; (5) conversion and unlawful retention of personal property under Louisiana law; (6) race and disability discrimination under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress under Louisiana law; (8) sexual battery under Louisiana law; (9) violation of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act; and (10) loss of consortium under Louisiana law.

The employer moved to dismiss the sex-based, hostile work environment, and harassment claims of Count Two; the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim of Count Seven; the sexual battery claim of Count Eight; and the loss of consortium claim of Count Ten.

Title VII claims for sex-based, hostile work environment, and discrimination. The employer argued that the employee had not exhausted aspects of his EEOC claims. The court agreed with respect to the employee’s Title VII claim for sex-based discrimination was not reasonably expected to grow out of his EEOC charge, leading to the court’s dismissal of this claim for failure to administratively exhaust this claim.

On the contrary, however, the court held that the employee’s discrimination claims based on hostile work environment and harassment could reasonably be expected to grow out of the EEOC allegations. The employee described racism as the catalyst for escalating workplace stories by his coworkers which questioned his fitness for employment, and which in turn, led to job alterations, training refusals, and coworker avoidance. Thus, the court held that the employee exhausted his remedies of these aspects of his Title VII claims, and these claims could move forward.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress. To succeed on this Louisiana tort claim, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) that the conduct of the defendant was extreme and outrageous; (2) that the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe; and (3) that the defendant desired to inflict sever emotional distress or knew that severe emotional distress would be certain or substantially certain to result from his conduct.” Significantly, Louisiana law requires that the employer’s actions must be “extreme and outrageous.”

The court dismissed this claim, noting that the employee did not allege any specific actions of the employer that could be interpreted as extreme and outrageous.

Sexual battery. The Louisiana criminal offense of sexual battery makes it unlawful for a person to engage in “the intentional touching of the breasts or buttocks of the victim by the offender using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the offender, directly or through clothing.” The court dismissed the employee’s claim, stating that nothing in the statute would lead to a private right of action as claimed by the employee.

Loss of consortium. The court dismissed this claim, stating that loss of consortium claims are not cognizable in employment discrimination cases.

Court action. The court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the employee’s Title VII discrimination claims based on hostile work environment and harassment but granted the employer’s motion to dismiss the employee’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual battery, and loss of consortium.

The case is No. 25-772.

Judge: Barbier, C.

Attorneys: Veleka Eskinde (Law Office of Veleka Eskinde) for John Fernandez and Delisea Beverly. Kimberly Frances Cheeseman (Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP) for American Sugar Refining, Inc. aka American Sugar Refinery aka Domino Sugar Chalmette.

Companies: American Sugar Refining, Inc.; American Sugar Refinery; Domino Sugar Chalmette

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination SexDiscrimination TortClaims StateLawClaims RemediesDamages LouisianaNews