Mahl v. Nokia Inc

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1 Additionally, Nokia’s motion to strike new arguments raised by Mahl
in her reply brief to this court is GRANTED.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 20, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 06-30518
Summary Calendar
_______________________
MARY MAHL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NOKIA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
No. 05-5243
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mary Mahl appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to Nokia, Inc. (“Nokia”) on her Louisiana Employment
Discrimination Law and intentional infliction of emotional distress
claims. Because we agree with the district court’s reasoning, we
AFFIRM.1
On her employment discrimination claim, Mahl is unable to
present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Nokia

-- 1 of 2 --

2
employed the requisite number of employees. See LA. REV. STAT.
23:302(2). Mahl’s affidavit that “to her knowledge” Nokia employed
“numerous” people is insufficient to withstand summary judgment.
See Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir. 2006)
(“Conclusory allegations and unsubstantiated assertions, however,
are not competent summary judgment evidence.”).
Mahl also claims intentional infliction of emotional
distress based on the fact that Nokia sent her notice of
termination only days after Hurricane Katrina. As found by the
district court, although the precise timing is unfortunate, this
does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct
required to state such a claim. See White v. Monsanto Co.,
585 So.2d 1205 (La. 1991).
The district court’s grant of summary judgment to Nokia
is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --