Opinion ID: 801410
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The LEDL Claim

Text: White contends that the district court erred in finding that his LEDL claim is prescribed. We disagree. White brought his LEDL claim under LA. REV. STAT. § 23:332(F),6 and LA. REV. STAT. § 23:303(D) provides that “[a]ny cause of action provided in [LA. REV. STAT. §§ 23:301—72] shall be subject to a 6 Under § 23:332(F), an insurer may not: (1) Intentionally fail or refuse to appoint or to discharge any insurance agent, or otherwise to intentionally discriminate against any insurance agent with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of the insurance agent’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (2) Intentionally limit, segregate, or classify his insurance agents or applicants for an insurance agent in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any insurance agent or applicant of employment opportunities, or otherwise adversely affect his status as an insurance agent or applicant because of the insurance agent’s or applicant’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 7 Case: 11-30788 Document: 00511873040 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/31/2012 No. 11-30788 prescriptive period of one year.” As to when the claim accrued, the district court followed the Louisiana Supreme Court’s holding in Eastin v. Entergy Corp., 865 So. 2d 49 (La. 2004), that in employment discrimination cases “prescription begins to run when the termination decision has been made and conveyed to the employee, even if the employment does not cease until a future date.” Id. at 54. Eastin relied on Title VII case law stating that “the proper focus is on the time of the discriminatory act, not the point at which the consequences of the act become painful.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original). The district court applied that reasoning to this case, viewing State Farm’s decision to refuse to offer White another contract as the discriminatory act. As noted above, White was told of that decision on January 4, 2008, more than one year before he filed suit. We see no flaw in that reasoning, nor any reason why White’s status as an independent contractor would prompt the Louisiana Supreme Court to apply a different analysis.