The plaintiffs-appellants sought relief from the defendants-appellees under theories of abuse of right and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed their claims with preju *173 dice. It held that insofar as their claims derive from their terminations (in 2005 and 2006) by Conoco Phillips or its contractors, the claims are prescribed. Even if the claims had not been prescribed, it held that the plaintiffs failed to state claims of either intentional infliction of emotional distress or abuse of right, particularly in light of Louisiana’s at-will employment law. Finally, there was and is no “continuing tort” that could emerge from Conoco Phillips’ alleged refusal to consider them for renewed employment for the reasons the plaintiffs-appellants allege.

Finding no error in the district court’s judgment, we AFFIRM.