* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 20, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-30917 Summary Calendar

VERA M. GUILLORY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY, INC; et al,

Defendants,
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY, INC, et al, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District Of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-cv-2125

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-appellant Vera Guillory brought suit against her
former employer, defendant-appellee Southwest Louisiana Legal
Services Society, Inc., et al (“SWLLS”), alleging violations of
both federal and Louisiana anti-discrimination law relating to her dismissal from SWLLS. The defendants moved for summary judgment,
which the district c ourt granted, dismissing all of plaintiff’sNo. 03-30917 -2-
claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appeals only one aspect of the
district court decision: the dismissal of her claim of retaliatory discharge under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, LAS,

R.S. 23:301 et seq. . Specifically, plaintiff contends that the
district court erred in dismissing her claim that she was impermissibly fired for refusing to settle an EEOC complaint that she had lodged against SWLLS.
This court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo

. Perez v. United States , 312 F.3d 191, 193 (5th
Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is proper if there are no disputed
issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. The district court properly granted summary judgment in this

case. First, plaintiff’s claim against defendants was premature under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law. Plaintiff was required to provide defendants with thirty days written notice of
her intention to br ing the retaliatory discharge claim under
Louisiana Law. S ee LSA-R.S. 23:303(C)

. She did not provide
defendants with this notice, and her claim, therefore, is procedurally faulted. Second, the district court properly held that plaintiff’s
claim fails on its merits. Plaintiff worked for SWLLS for twenty
four years. She developed serious kidney problems and took sick
leave from work on May 8, 2000. During her sick leave, SWLLS paid plaintiff her regular salary, a f ull year’s Christmas bonus,No. 03-30917 -3-
accumulated leave that she never earned and benefits for the eight months in which she performed no services for them. She was also
offered the opportunity to work from home for part of the week, but

was unable to do so. During this time, plaintiff filed a complaint with the EEOC claiming that she was being discriminated against
because of her illness. She was ultimately terminated after
attempts to work out a severance agreement and find accommodations
for her failed.
The plaintiff clai ms that she was terminated in retaliation
for bringing the EEOC complaint against defendant. The record
demonstrates, however, th at, far from terminating her in
retaliation for bringing the complaint, SWLLS worked with plaintiff

to accommodate her disability and attempt to provide her with an equitable retirement package. SWLLS provided plaintiff with month’s worth of benefits and salary that it was not obligated to provide. All plaintiff has shown is that SWLLS k new of her EEOC complaint when it discussed a severance package for her. She provides no evidence, direct or indirect, of improper motivation.
Under these facts, the district court properly held that plaintiff’s claim of retaliatory discharge under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law should fail as a matter of law.

AFFIRMED.