Dolores M. OUBRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee

Fifth Circuit

Dolores M. OUBRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee

136 F.3d 1342, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 4138, 72 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,225, 76 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 480, 1998 WL 105198

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Dolores M. OUBRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Read the opinion of the Court — 112 F.3d 787 →

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided March 10, 1998·No. 96-30654·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Dolores M. Oubre filed suit against Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) on September 26, 1995. Oubre alleged that she was constructively discharged from employment by Entergy in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. and LSA-R.S. 23: 972 and 51: 2231, et seq. Entergy filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Oubre had waived her right to bring this action by executing a release which waived all claims relating to her employment. Entergy further argued that Oubre ratified the release by accepting and not returning the consideration given to her in exchange for her execution of the release.

The district court granted Entergy’s motion in accordance with our decisions in Blakeney v. Lomas Information Systems, Inc., 65 F.3d 482 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1158, 116 S.Ct. 1042, 134 L.Ed.2d 189 (1996), and Wamsley v. Champlin Refining & Chemicals, Inc., 11 F.3d 534 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1037, 115 S.Ct. 1403, 131 L.Ed.2d 290 (1995). We affirmed. See Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., No. 96-30654 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 1996) (per curiam). The Supreme Court reversed. See Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 838, 139 L.Ed.2d 849 (1998).

Accordingly, the district court’s order of May 23,1996, granting summary judgment is REVERSED. The ease is REMANDED to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s pronouncement.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Dolores M. Oubre filed suit against Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) on September 26, 1995. Oubre alleged that she was constructively discharged from employment by Entergy in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. and LSA-R.S. 23: 972 and 51: 2231, et seq. Entergy filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Oubre had waived her right to bring this action by executing a release which waived all claims relating to her employment. Entergy further argued that Oubre ratified the release by accepting and not returning the consideration given to her in exchange for her execution of the release.

The district court granted Entergy’s motion in accordance with our decisions in Blakeney v. Lomas Information Systems, Inc., 65 F.3d 482 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1158, 116 S.Ct. 1042, 134 L.Ed.2d 189 (1996), and Wamsley v. Champlin Refining & Chemicals, Inc., 11 F.3d 534 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1037, 115 S.Ct. 1403, 131 L.Ed.2d 290 (1995). We affirmed. See Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., No. 96-30654 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 1996) (per curiam). The Supreme Court reversed. See Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 838, 139 L.Ed.2d 849 (1998).

Accordingly, the district court’s order of May 23,1996, granting summary judgment is REVERSED. The ease is REMANDED to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s pronouncement.

Dolores M. OUBRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 136 F.3d 1342, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 4138, 72 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,225, 76 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 480, 1998 WL 105198 (5th Cir. 1998).

Pincite

136 F.3d 1342 (Dolores M. OUBRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related