IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________________ 

No. 19-30293

Summary Calendar

___________________ 

REBECCA BELLUE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

SID GAUTREAUX, In his official capacity as East Baton Rouge Sheriff; 

ELEANOR T. STEWART, Captain, 

 Defendants - Appellees

_______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:17-CV-576

_______________________ 

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rebecca Bellue, a white female, brought claims of race discrimination, 

hostile work environment based on sex, and retaliation arising out of her 

employment as a deputy with the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office. She sued 

 * 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 29, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30293 Document: 00515177888 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2019
No. 19-30293

2

individual supervisors under section 1981 for the race and sex claims.1 The 

district court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 

12(b)(6). As to the race claim, the court concluded that she did not allege an 

adverse employment action nor any facts that could plausibly support a claim 

of racial discrimination. As to the sex claim, the court concluded that the 

allegations did not establish severe or pervasive harassment. Bellue does not 

address those grounds for the Rule 12(b)(6) ruling in her brief. Her brief 

focuses only on the summary judgment evidence relating to her retaliation 

claim that was dismissed at that later stage of the case. Because Bellue does 

not make any specific arguments to challenge the court’s dismissal of the race 

discrimination and hostile environment claims at the pleading stage, she has 

waived her appeal of that ruling. Innova Hosp. San Antonio, L.P. v. Blue Cross 

& Blue Shield of Ga., Inc., 892 F.3d 719, 732 (5th Cir. 2018) (“An appellant 

abandons all issues not raised and argued in [his] initial brief on appeal.” 

(quotations omitted)). 

The district court granted summary judgment on Bellue’s claim that she 

was fired in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. Bellue appeared to 

assert this claim against the Sheriff’s Office under Title VII. But the 

government agency was not named as a defendant. Although Sheriff

Gautreaux was named as a defendant in his official capacity, Title VII does not 

extend even to a public official sued in his official capacity. Ackel v. Nat’l 

Commc’ns, Inc., 339 F.3d 376, 382 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Individuals are not 

liable under Title VII in either their individual or official capacities.”). 

Gautreaux, however, did not raise the defense that he was not subject to a Title 

VII suit. The district court thus considered the merits of the retaliation claim. 

 1 It appears she may have also sued the individual defendants under Title VII. But 

individuals are not subject to Title VII. Smith v. Amedisys, Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 448 (5th Cir. 

2002). 

 Case: 19-30293 Document: 00515177888 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2019
No. 19-30293

3

It applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and concluded 

that there was a “veritable smorgasbord of documentary evidence that 

establishes Plaintiff’s inability or unwillingness to properly execute her job 

duties.” Those nonretaliatory reasons shifted the burden to Bellue to produce 

evidence of pretext. Having reviewed the briefs, record, and governing law, we 

agree with the district court that Bellue did not identify evidence to rebut 

Gautreaux’s legitimate reasons for firing her. 

Bellue also challenges the district court’s rejection of her request to file 

an amended pleading. That request came in a footnote to her summary 

judgment opposition brief, which was filed about three months after the court 

had dismissed all her claims except for the retaliation claim. The district court 

concluded this request was too late as the claims had already been dismissed 

and also noted that Bellue had failed to file a copy of the proposed amended 

pleading. Given those circumstances, denying the request for leave to amend 

was not an abuse of discretion. 

AFFIRMED.

 

 Case: 19-30293 Document: 00515177888 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/29/2019