Smith v. Amedisys, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
298 F.3d 434 (2002)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Lori Smith (plaintiff) worked at Amedisys, Inc. (defendant). After being harassed by multiple supervisors, Smith left her job and filed a lawsuit against Amedisys in Louisiana state court alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Louisiana state employment and tort law. Amedisys removed the case to federal district court, arguing that the court had federal-question jurisdiction over the Title VII claims. Because Smith’s federal and state claims arose under the same set of facts and were substantially related, the district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. After a trial, the district court granted summary judgment to Amedisys on Smith’s Title VII claims and dismissed the claims. The district court then considered whether it could retain supplemental jurisdiction over Smith’s state-law claims and decided, because of the time and resources it had devoted to Smith’s case over the three years it was pending in federal court, that retaining supplemental jurisdiction was proper. The district court then granted summary judgment for Amedisys on Smith’s state-law claims. Smith appealed, arguing that the district court improperly continued to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims after dismissing her Title VII claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
