Broussard v. Start Corporation

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CASSANDRA BROUSSARD
VERSUS
START CORPORATION
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 26-278
DIVISION (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Defendant START Corporation has filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (R. Doc. 4). No opposition has been filed, and the deadline
to do so has expired. Having considered the submissions of counsel, the record, and
the applicable law, the Court grants the Motion.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff, Cassandra Broussard, is a Black woman1 who was employed by
START Corporation as a Registered Nurse in the Assertive Community Treatment
team.2 She was employed at START Corporation from approximately December 2019
until her termination on April 26, 2024.3 Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to
disparate treatment by her supervisor, Jeremy Echols.4 According to Plaintiff, Echols
would minimalize, marginalize, and devalue Plaintiff’s work while praising Plaintiff’s
white counterpart.5 In addition, Echols would impose more critical and punitive
1 R. Doc. 1-2, ¶¶ 1, 20.
2 Id. ¶ 3.
3 Id. ¶¶ 3, 19.
4 Id. ¶¶ 5–6.
5 Id.
Case 2:26-cv-00278-EJD Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 7

2
documentation and performance standards on Plaintiff than on similarly situated
white employees.6 Plaintiff further alleges that when she and a white counterpart
both raised concerns about a new work policy, only Plaintiff was docked points for
adaptability in her evaluation.7 When Plaintiff attempted to escalate her concerns
regarding Echols, upper management provided no response.8 Plaintiff also claims
that Human Resources ignored her report that Echols was engaging with insurance
fraud.9 Following these complaints, Defendant hired an administrative assistant,
Elizabeth Haskins.10 According to Plaintiff, Haskins immediately began making false
accusations against Plaintiff and intentionally impeded Plaintiff’s work.11 Plaintiff
repeatedly complained to management that Haskins was harassing her, creating
division within the team, and fostering a hostile work environment.12 On April 24,
2024, Defendant placed Plaintiff on unpaid administrative leave.13 Plaintiff was
allegedly informed that the suspension was imposed because she had previously
reported concerns about a coworker.14 On April 26, 2024, Defendant terminated
6 Id. ¶ 7.
7 Id. ¶¶ 8–9.
8 Id. ¶ 10–11.
9 Id. ¶ 11.
10 Id. ¶ 13.
11 Id.
12 Id. ¶ 15.
13 Id. ¶ 17.
14 Id. ¶ 18.
Case 2:26-cv-00278-EJD Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Plaintiff’s 	employment 	for 	bullying, 	submitting 	false 	documents, 	belittling,
threatening, and harassing coworkers.15
Plaintiff originally filed her complaint in Louisiana state court on December
19, 2025.16 Defendant removed this action to federal court on February 6, 2026.17
Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant for race-based employment discrimination
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.,18
discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981,19 discrimination and pursuant
to Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, La. R.S. 23:301, et seq.,20 retaliation
under Louisiana’s anti-reprisal statue, La R.S. 23:967,21 intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and negligent supervision.22
II. 	Standard of Law
A. 	Rule 12(b)(6)
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to move to
dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Dismissal is appropriate when a plaintiff has not pleaded enough facts to “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
15 Id. ¶ 19.
16 Id. at 1.
17 R. Doc. 1.
18 R. Doc. 1-2, ¶ 24.
19 Id. ¶ 26.
20 Id. at 4.
21 Id.
22 Id. ¶ 21.
Case 2:26-cv-00278-EJD Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 7

4
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id.
III. 	Analysis
A. 	Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Louisiana Employment
Discrimination Law.
Plaintiff brings a claim under the Louisiana’s Employment Discrimination
Law, La. R.S. 23:301, et seq.23 Defendant argues that the Louisiana’s Employment
Discrimination Law is inapplicable to nonprofits.24
The Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, set forth in La. R.S. 23:301,
et seq., provides a cause of action against an “employer” engaging in discrimination.
Section 302 defines “employer” and explicitly provides that “[t]his Chapter shall not
apply to … Employment of an individual by a private educational or religious
institution or any nonprofit corporation.” L.A. R.S. 23:302(2)(b). In her complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that START Corporation is a nonprofit organization.25 In ruling on a
12(b)(6) motion, “[t]he court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495
F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, START
23 Id. ¶ 21.
24 R. Doc. 4-1 at 4.
25 R. Doc. 1-2 at 1.
Case 2:26-cv-00278-EJD Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Corporation is not an “employer” under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination
Law. Plaintiff’s Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law claim must be dismissed.
B. 	Plaintiff fails to state a claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s conduct constitutes intentional infliction of
emotional distress (“IIED”). Defendant avers that Plaintiff fails to allege extreme and
outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress.26 “In order to establish an IIED
claim under Louisiana law, a plaintiff must show: (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 severe emotional
distress or knew that severe emotional distress would be certain or substantially
certain to result from his conduct.” Eng. v. Crochet, 154 F.4th 369, 374 (5th Cir. 2025)
(internal citations and quotations omitted). “The conduct must be so outrageous in
character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency,
and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Id.
Plaintiff alleges that she experienced disparate treatment based on her race.
The Fifth Circuit has rejected claims of greater outrageous conduct. See Baker v.
FedEx Ground Package System Inc., 278 Fed. Appx. 322 (5th Cir. 2008) (affirming
district court holding that a coworker’s conduct was not extreme and outrageous
when she commented that she did not want to work with people like plaintiff, an
26 R. Doc. 4-1 at 5–6.
Case 2:26-cv-00278-EJD Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 Page 5 of 7

6
African-American female, and that “whites rule”). Plaintiff’s allegations of hostile
work environment, bullying, and harassment also do not rise to the level of extreme
and outrageous. See Deus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 506, 516 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting
that the jurisprudence in Louisiana recognizes that hostile work environment tort
claims do not extend to issues related to plaintiff’s work performance). Further, the
complaint does not contain specific dates of harassment. See White v. Monsanto Co.,
585 So. 2d 1205, 1210 (La. 1991) (“[I]ntentional infliction of emotional distress in a
workplace environment has usually been limited to cases involving a pattern of
deliberate, repeated harassment over a period of time.”).
Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege any facts to support the allegation that she
suffered emotional distress.27 Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to make out a claim of IIED.
C. 	The Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Law bars Plaintiff’s
negligent supervision claim.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s negligent supervision claim is barred by the
Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act, La. R.S. 23:1032.28 The LWCA provides the
exclusive 	remedy 	for 	all 	workplace 	injuries 	except 	for 	those 	stemming 	from
intentional acts. See La. R.S. 23:1032(A)(1)(a) (“Except for intentional acts ... the
rights and remedies herein granted to an employee or his dependent on account of an
injury ... shall be exclusive of all other rights, remedies, and claims for damages ....”)
(emphasis added). “[P]laintiff bears the burden of showing a qualifying intentional
27 R. Doc. 1-2, ¶ 22.
28 R. Doc. 4-1 at 6–7.
Case 2:26-cv-00278-EJD Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 Page 6 of 7

7
act.” Rolls on behalf of A. R. v. Packaging Corp. of Am. Inc., 34 F.4th 431, 441 (5th
Cir. 2022). Plaintiff’s allegation of negligent supervision does not meet that standard.
Thus, Plaintiff’s claim for negligent supervision is barred by the Louisiana Workers’
Compensation Act.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (R. Doc. 4) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim under the Louisiana
Employment Discrimination Law is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of
emotional distress is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim of negligent supervision
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3 rd day of March, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00278-EJD Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 Page 7 of 7