Preview:

ANGELINE M. SINGLETON, Wife ofland  NO. 02-CA-590  
GLEN A. SINGLETON, Individually and on  
Behalf of Their Minor Children, JAVON A.  
SINGLETON, MARK A. SINGLETON,  FIFTH CIRCUIT  
RAVON A. SINGLETON, GAREN A.  
SINGLETON, and PRECIOUS J.  
SINGLETON  COURT OF APPEAL  

VERSUS
STATE OF LOUISIANA ST. CHARLES PARISH, MORRIS ZERINGUE and RUSTY REBOWE
ON APPEAL FROM
THE TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF ST. CHARLES, STATE OF LOUISIANA,
NO. 50,797, DIVISION "E,"
HONORABLE ROBERT A. CHAISSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

November 26, 2002
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges James L. Cannella, Marion F. Edwards, and Susan M. Chehardy.
JAN P. JUMONVILLE 3305 Ridgeway Drive Metairie, Louisiana 70002 Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants, Angeline M. Singleton, wife of/and Glen
A. Singleton, et al.
ALAN A. ZAUNBRECHER 3850 North Causeway Boulevard Lakeway II-Suite 1070 Metairie, Louisiana 70002 Counsel for Defendants-Appellees, St. Charles Parish, Morris Zeringue, and Rusty Rebowe.
AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff, Glen Singleton, appeals the dismissal of his suit for slander, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotion distress against St. Charles Parish, Rusty Rebowe, and Morris Zeringue.' We affirm.
Singleton was employed by the St. Charles Parish Department of Recreation as a maintenance worker from 1993 to July 13, 1999.2 Morris Zeringue was a temporary foreman who was Singleton's supervisor from time to time when Singleton's regular foreman was absent. Rusty Rebowe was the director of the department.
Singleton filed suit against the Parish, Zeringue and Rebowe in December 1998, alleging that Zeringue made intentionally false statements about him to Rebowe claiming Singleton used foul and abusive language toward him, placed false information in Singleton's personnel file to that effect, and maintained the truth of his false statements following Singleton's grievance hearing, resulting in the false allegations being maintained in his personnel record. Singleton alleged that Rebowe failed to investigate the veracity of Zeringue's allegations, falsely told
Also plaintiffs in the action are Singleton's wife, Angeline, and his children, asserting claims for loss of consortium. Because the bulk of the claimed damages are Glen Singleton's, for ease of reference we refer to him as "plaintiff" in the singular.
2 The last day Singleton actually worked was August 21, 1998; on August 24, 1998 he was admitted voluntarily to River Oaks Hospital for treatment of depression. After his hospitalization he did not return to work. He tendered a formal resignation on July 13, 1999.
others that Singleton would be fired, and acted in concert with Zeringue to harass

Singleton and intentionally inflict emotional distress on him.
Singleton alleged numerous additional incidents involving Zeringue and/or Rebowe, in which both allegedly made false statements about him to others, retaliated against him for complaining, applied a higher standard of rules and regulations to him than to other employees, and generally created a hostile work environment.
He alleged the Parish of St. Charles is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees, Zeringue and Rebowe.
Singleton asserted that as a result of the defendants' behavior he suffered disabling injuries to his mind, including severe major depression, daily suicidal thoughts, disturbed appetite and sleep, nightmares, crying spells, severe anhedonia and emotional outburst, stress, and acute emotional distress and turmoil. He sought damages for pain and suffering, disability, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses, and loss of income.
The matter was tried by the district judge on August 15, 17, and 27, 2001. Plaintiff presented numerous witnesses. At the close of plaintiff's case, the defense made a motion for involuntary dismissal, which was denied. The defense then call plaintiff under cross-examination, but presented no further witnesses. After holding the matter under advisement for some time, the court issued a judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing plaintiffs' demands.
In written Reasons for Judgment, the court found that there was "a definite personality conflict" between Singleton and Zeringue and that Zeringue treated Singleton differently than other employees. The court concluded, however, "even
3 Plaintiff requested a jury trial, but the Parish refused to waive its statutory immunity to trial byjury.
accepting all Singleton's testimony as true," that the conduct of which Singleton

complained did not rise to the level of egregious conduct necessary to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court did not find the defendants' behavior "extreme or outrageous" or that it would "result in distress that a reasonable person could not endure." On that basis, the court denied the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
As for the charges of defamation, the court found the remarks allegedly made by Zeringue were statements of opinion that did not give rise to a cause of action for defamation. Thus, the court also denied the claim for defamation.
On appeal, Singleton asserts (1) the trial court erred in finding that the conduct of Zeringue and Rebowe did not rise to the level of egregious conduct necessary to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and (2) the court erred in finding that the statements of Zeringue and Rebowe were opinions that did not give rise to a cause of action for defamation. Facts
Plaintiff testified that he first had a problem in 1993, when he was wrongly
accused of stealing some plywood from a lumber yard. The lumber yard owner thought plaintiff was involved a making "deals" using parish property. The lumber yard owner later admitted he was mistaken and the charges were dropped. Nevertheless, plaintiff was suspended from his job for three days without pay, for misuse of parish property (using his work truck to haul the plywood, which was his personal property) and misuse of parish time (running errands to the lumber yard while on duty at his job). Plaintiff said he had permission from his permanent supervisor, Don Muller, to run the errand on his break and to use the Parish truck, but the suspension was upheld.
In 1995 there was an incident in which plaintiff complained to his

councilman about the failure of the Public Works Department to repair potholes on his street. While plaintiff was on duty one day he drove his parish vehicle to the Public Works yard. He was confronted by Rusty Eusea, supervisor of the Public Works Department, who shook his fist at him aggressively and admonished him for "going over his head" about the road repair. Plaintiffjumped back and fell against his truck. He was off work on worker's compensation for three months after that incident. He complained about Eusea's behavior to Rebowe, but Rebowe indicated he did not believe Eusea would behave that way and took no action.
Plaintiff testified that after Zeringue was made temporary foreman in 1995, he frequently criticized plaintiffs work, talked down to him, ridiculed him, smirked at him, watched him like a hawk, and lied about plaintiff s reporting in between job assignments. Plaintiff said his fellow workers told him Zeringue belittled him. Plaintiff felt that no matter to whom he complained, nobody listened, including Rebowe.
Several of plaintiffs coworkers testified they heard Zeringue say that plaintiff was lazy, didn't want to work, and worked slow. Several, however, indicated that Zeringue behaved in similar ways to other workers. At least one coworker admitted hearing Zeringue use profanity in connection with plaintiff, with remarks such as that Glen Singleton didn't do a "F-ing" thing and that he was a lazy "M-F."
Plaintiff and two coworkers testified to a meeting in which Rebowe announced that someone had put sugar into the gas tank of a compressor and admonished the workers. Plaintiff and his witnesses stated that Rebowe looked at plaintiff while stating the Department "would not take a downfall," which plaintiff and the witnesses construed as an implication that plaintiff was the perpetrator.
However, plaintiff testified he had been with one of the other witnesses during the

entire time and, thus, could not have committed the vandalism.
One witness testified to an incident in 1997 when Zeringue was reading a newspaper article about someone being arrested. Zeringue accused plaintiff of being "in jail" and a criminal, which was not true.
In 1996, plaintiff applied for the position of Grass Cutter. He said Zeringue told him that his brother, Steven Zeringue, was going to get that position. In fact the position was awarded to Steven Zeringue. Plaintiff felt he should have gotten the position because he had seniority and he was qualified to operate the equipment.
On several occasions plaintiff was written up for being tardy. He testified that Zeringue refused to accept his reasons for being late, although they were valid and despite the fact that Zeringue relaxed his standards for other employees who were tardy. Plaintiff said Zeringue also refused to fill in the "Reason for Being Tardy" section on the forms before plaintiff signed the slips.
Plaintiff also testified that he was falsely written up for using threatening language to Rebowe. The incident arose after a disagreement between Zeringue and plaintiff over a tardy slip issued to plaintiff. They went to Rebowe's office to settle it. After Rebowe talked to Zeringue, Rebowe issued an Employee Warning based on accusations by Zeringue that plaintiff had used foul and abusive language toward him. Plaintiff denied he had done so.
In February 1998, plaintiff used personal time to take one of his sons to the hospital for medical tests. He requested the time as a vacation day from Rebowe. Rebowe gave him permission and told him to tell Zeringue he was leaving. Plaintiff told Zeringue he was leaving, but would be coming back. According to plaintiff, Zeringue lied to Rebowe and denied that plaintiff had told him he was
leaving. When plaintiff retumed to the job later that day, Rebowe admonished him

for failing to tell Zeringue. Rebowe placed a waming in plaintiff's personnel file.
Plaintiff filed an in-house grievance to remove the waming he had received for allegedly using foul and abusive language toward Zeringue. Despite the testimony of four witnesses on behalf of plaintiff at the grievance hearing, the personnel officer, Sandra Zimmer, recommended to the parish president that the waming remain in plaintiff's file. Her recommendation was approved. Although plaintiff filed a petition for appeal to the civil service board, no action was ever taken on his appeal and it was never set for hearing.
Plaintiff testified that Rebowe put negative letters about him in his personnel file complaining of his behavior, which he was not allowed to see, and of which he learned only through this litigation.
In May or June 1998, Zeringue falsely reported to Don Muller that plaintiff had failed to chalk a field (i.e., draw chalk lines on a baseball diamond), as he had been ordered to do. On another occasion when Zeringue was acting as foreman in Muller's absence, he ordered plaintiff to widen the field between the baseball bases, although plaintiff told him that was not the way Muller wanted it done. When Muller returned he was annoyed and ordered the field redone. Muller commented to plaintiff that Rebowe let Zeringue do whatever he wanted.
In August 1998 plaintiff informed Zeringue he needed an emergency vacation day to take his son to the doctor. However, Zeringue failed to report his request to Rebowe's office.
On August 17, 1998, Zeringue ordered plaintiff to mow a baseball field while the grass was wet. Plaintiff told him that Muller always wanted the grass

Download 9BB863AA-FE76-4202-A8C3-E88FA0FE3BC3.pdf

Louisiana Law