## Facts

- Lori Smith worked for Amedisys, Inc. from October 1995 to September 1996.
- Smith alleged repeated sexual advances and unwelcome physical contact by her supervisor, Promod Seth, and additional harassment by senior executives Mitchell Morel and William Borne.
- Smith alleged Seth acted flirtatiously at work, put his arm around her in front of others, and repeatedly asked her to go to dinner and drinks.
- Smith alleged that when she drove Seth for work-related purposes, he repeatedly touched her leg and held her hand, and she resisted and told him the conduct was inappropriate and made her uncomfortable.
- Smith alleged that on a business trip Seth came to her hotel room, pulled her toward him on the bed, kissed and touched her, and she pushed him away and repeatedly asked him to leave before he complied.
- Smith left Amedisys and filed suit asserting Title VII claims and Louisiana employment-discrimination and tort claims against Amedisys and the individual defendants.
- The case was removed to federal court; the district court granted summary judgment on the Title VII claims, retained supplemental jurisdiction over the Louisiana claims, and granted summary judgment on those claims as well.

## Issues

1. After dismissal of all federal Title VII claims, whether the district court abused its discretion by retaining supplemental jurisdiction over related Louisiana claims rather than remanding or dismissing them.
2. Whether Smith produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on Louisiana claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 after the federal claims were dismissed.
- The court also affirmed summary judgment on the Louisiana claims, including IIED, concluding Smith failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact under controlling Louisiana standards.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a federal court may decline supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed, but dismissal or remand is not mandatory; the decision is discretionary.
- In deciding whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction, courts consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, evaluated under the totality of the circumstances.
- Retention is commonly justified when substantial federal judicial resources have already been expended and the state and federal claims arise from the same core facts, making duplication inefficient.
- Under Louisiana law, IIED requires proof of extreme and outrageous conduct and severe emotional distress; the standard is demanding and frequently not met in employment-related disputes absent exceptional facts.
- On summary judgment, the nonmovant must present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on each required element; conclusory allegations are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s choice to resolve the remaining Louisiana claims after disposing of the Title VII claims, emphasizing discretion under § 1367 and the case’s advanced posture, and it affirmed summary judgment because the record did not meet Louisiana’s stringent requirements for IIED and related state-law theories.


Smith v. Amedisys, Inc., 298 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2002)