Case ID: f-appx_170/html/0365-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cindy L. LACAZE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.W. GRAINGER, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 05-30829.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided March 16, 2006.
    Nelson W. Cameron, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Murphy J. Foster, III, Amanda S. Stout, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Cindy L. Lacaze, who suffers from muscular dystrophy, brought this action against Defendant-Appellee W.W. Grainger, Inc., alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. With the assistance of her brother who was an employee of Grainger, Lacaze — an employee of Kelly Temporary Services (“KTS”) — was furnished to Grainger to fill a temporary vacancy when Jonathan Williams, a permanent Grainger employee, was shifted on an interim basis to cover a vacancy at a different Grainger location. When that assignment was over and Williams returned to the Grainger location where Lacaze was filling in for him, he was reinstated in that job and, because her services were no longer needed in that position and no other suitable vacancies existed there, Lacaze’s services as a KTS “temp” at this Grainger location came to an end.

The district court granted Grainger’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Lacaze’s action in its entirety, thereby disposing of all her state and federal claims with prejudice. This appeal followed.

We have carefully reviewed the comprehensive opinion of the district court, as well as the record on appeal and the appellate briefs of the parties. As a result, we are satisfied that the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Grainger was properly granted on all claims. Essentially for the reasons set forth by the district court, summary judgment from which Lacaze appeals is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.