UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KRISTINA SANSONE CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO: 18-14093

JAZZ CASINO COMPANY, LLC SECTION: T (3)

ORDER Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Jazz Casino Company, LLC.1 Plaintiff has filed an opposition.2 With leave of court, Defendant has filed a reply.3 For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant. She has asserted various claims of retaliation due to sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and discrimination based on her disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act.4 Defendant in its motion asserts that summary judgment is warranted because none of Plaintiff’s claims is legally cognizable nor supported by the evidentiary record. LAW AND ANALYSIS Summary judgment is proper where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”5 When assessing

1 R. Doc. 41. 2 R. Doc. 48. 3 R. Doc. 59. 4 R. Doc. 1. 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 1 whether a dispute as to any material fact exists, the court considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrains from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.”® All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, but “unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth ‘ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law’ are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment.”’ The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.* “Once the movant does so, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to establish an issue of fact that warrants trial.”? The Court has reviewed the Pleadings and finds that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment has merit. Plaintiff has failed to point to evidence in the record demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact that her termination resulted from anything other than her own misrepresentations. Nor has Plaintiff established a genuine issue of material fact with regard to her hostile work environment claim. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of September 2020. Conte Gand Gaurd GREG GERARD GUIDRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

® Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co.,

(Sth Cir. Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp.,

(Sth Cir. 1985); Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,

(Sth Cir. 1994). 8 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

,

,

(1986). Smith v. Reg'l Transit Auth.,

, 420 n.4 (Sth Cir. 2016).