BATON ROUGE, La. – A lawsuit filed against Louisiana State University alleging it failed to accommodate an employee’s medical disability should be heard by a Louisiana federal court, state Attorney General Liz Murrill contends.
LSU’s Agricultural and Mechanical College was named in a lawsuit filed in December 2025.
Murrill
Murrill, who is representing LSU in the suit, argues the action presents “substantial federal questions” and therefore should be removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
The four-page notice, filed April 23, seeks to remove the lawsuit from the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge.
“In the instant matter, Plaintiff’s own pleadings place this case squarely within the jurisdiction of this Court,” the notice states.
Federal question jurisdiction is the authority of U.S. federal courts to hear cases arising under the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, or international treaties. It is one of the two ways a case can be brought to a federal court, including diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Kristin Malia Krolak asserts LSU violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, with claims for failure to accommodate and discriminatory discharge.
Krolak filed her petition with the state court Dec. 29, 2025.
According to her lawsuit, Krolak was hired by LSU as a curatorial assistant in the College of Arts and Design on May 1, 2002. She later served as gallery coordinator for the school from Aug. 5, 2015 until her termination April 8, 2024.
Krolak claims she was out on Family Medical Leave Act, or FMLA, leave in November 2023. She was to return to work in December 2023; LSU requested a “return to work” letter from her doctor notating any limitations once she returned to work.
“Plaintiff only discovered ‘climbing ladders’ was the alleged essential job duty at issue only after she filed an EEOC charge,” her petition states, noting she was an individual with a disability under the ADA.
“Defendant admitted in its termination of plaintiff that it was due to a limitation relating to an impairment, whether real or perceived, i.e., ‘climbing ladders.’”
Pointing to her nearly 20-year tenure at the university, Krolak claims she was qualified to work as the gallery coordinator with or without an accommodation.
“The ability to climb ladders was not an essential duty, and even if it were, reasonable accommodations were available or had been effectively in place for years with no undue hardship,” her petition states.
“Defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment based on her disability, whether real or perceived, and/or because of defendant’s failure to accommodate her disability.”
Krolak seeks damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorney’s fees.
She is represented by Miller & Hilgendorf in Baton Rouge.
