Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit denied the union's petition for review and held that Entergy's transmission and distribution dispatchers are "supervisors" and thus excluded from the National Labor Relations Act's collective bargaining protections. The court held that the union waived its argument about dispatchers' assignment power, barring the court's review of the issue. The court also held that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that dispatchers are supervisors because they assign field employees to places using independent judgment. The court rejected the union's challenge to the Board's independent judgment conclusion and held that the Board's most recent decision demonstrates that its decision was based on the complete record, including the evidence that previously led it to the opposite conclusion on dispatchers' supervisory status; the evidence is sufficient to establish that the dispatchers' prioritization decisions involve independent judgment and meet the statutory definition; and the Board did not err when it failed to address the fact that dispatchers do not assess the skills of field employees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Board's judgment. View "International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against 4JLJ under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that 4JLJ violated the FLSA's overtime wage mandates. Plaintiffs argued that the stage bonus and performance bonus should have been included in the "regular rate" for the purposes of overtime calculation. After the jury's verdict, plaintiffs filed two identical motions for judgment as a matter of law, which were both denied. The district court awarded sanctions to the plaintiffs over a contentious discovery dispute.The Fifth Circuit held that the performance bonuses—but not the stage bonuses—should have been included in the regular rate as a matter of law. In this case, a reasonable jury could not have concluded that 4JLJ maintained discretion over the amount of performance bonuses, and thus the performance bonuses were nondiscretionary under the FLSA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider all relief warranted. The court affirmed the sanctions award, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that 4JLJ's arguments on cross-appeal are unavailing. View "Edwards v. 4JLJ, LLC" on Justia Law

After the clinic that plaintiffs were employed at closed and they were terminated, plaintiffs filed suit alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The jury found for defendants on all claims.The Fifth Circuit held that any error in limiting the testimony of the human resources representative was harmless; the district court applied the proper legal standard by admitting extrinsic evidence for the purpose of showing the human resources representative's bias, and the scope of the HR Director's testimony that the district court permitted was not an abuse of its broad discretion; and the district court did not abuse is discretion by failing to offer the jury a motivating-factor instruction on the Title VII discrimination and FMLA retaliation claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Adams v. Memorial Hermann" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a labor dispute between a group of railroad companies and a labor organization representing the railroads' employees (SMART-TD). The railroads filed suit against SMART-TD, alleging that its refusal to bargain over crew consist violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The district court issued a permanent injunction requiring SMART-TD to begin negotiating over the crew consist proposals.The Fifth Circuit vacated the permanent injunction, holding that the district court properly classified the present dispute but that the injunction was not the proper remedy considering the type of dispute. In this case, there are two interrelated, but distinct disputes: the moratorium dispute and the crew consist dispute. The court agreed with the district court that the moratorium dispute is a minor dispute and is therefore subject to compulsory and binding arbitration before the National Railroad Adjustment Board or before an adjustment board established by the employer and the unions representing the employees. Furthermore, the crew consist dispute is major because it involves amending the existing collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The court deferred the minor moratorium dispute to the exclusive jurisdiction of the board, allowing it to first decide whether SMART-TD is required to bargain, and potentially avoid major dispute procedures and the availability of self-help measures all together. View "BNSF Railway Co. v. International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's First Amendment claim alleging political retaliation. Plaintiff was the Crime Victims Unit (CVU) Coordinator for the 229th Judicial District Attorney's Office and defendant was her boss, the District Attorney.As a preliminary matter, the court rejected plaintiff's claim that the district court erred by disposing of the complaint at the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) stage. On the merits, the court held that plaintiff's employment was not shielded by the First Amendment and the district court correctly concluded that she was subject to the patronage dismissal exception to First Amendment retaliation claims. In this case, plaintiff's position as CVU Coordinator is a confidential or policymaking role, and one for which "party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for effective performance." The court also held that because plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a constitutional claim, her municipal liability claim was also properly dismissed. View "Garza v. Escobar" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint alleging retaliation under Title VII, based on lack of statutory standing. Plaintiff was employed by Prelle Financial Group as a third-party wholesaler of life-insurance products to clients of UBS. Plaintiff alleged that he was the intentional target of the retaliation against his daughter, who was an employee of UBS.The court agreed with the district court and held that plaintiff's nonemployee status forecloses his statutory standing to sue because Title VII claims require an employment relationship between plaintiff and defendant. The court held that plaintiff's daughter's status as an employee is not enough to deposit plaintiff into federal court. Rather, plaintiff must show that his personal interests are arguably covered, which he has failed to do. View "Simmons v. UBS Financial Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the district court's summary judgment dismissal of her action for intentional discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as retaliation under Louisiana's Whistleblower Statute (LWS).The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's discrimination claims, rejecting plaintiff's claim of intentional discrimination rooted in Christwood's failure to timely list her with the state as a director, claim of discriminatory pay, claim of discriminatory demotion, and claim of constructive discharge. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's whistleblower claim, holding that Christwood was plaintiff's employer. Because the district court concluded that Christwood was not an employer, it failed to address the remainder of plaintiff's LWS claim. Therefore, the court vacated the dismissal of the LWS claim and remanded for further consideration. View "Sanders v. Christwood" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Wal-Mart for retaliation and wrongful termination and an assistant manager at Wal-Mart for tortious interference with an employment contract. Plaintiff alleged that she was fired after she reported her supervisor for sexually harassing other Wal-Mart employees. Wal-Mart alleged that plaintiff was terminated because she violated Wal-Mart’s Investigation and Detention of Shoplifters Policy.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, holding that plaintiff has met her prima facie burden of causation by showing close enough timing between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. However, the temporal proximity between plaintiff's protected activity and her termination is relevant to, but not alone sufficient to demonstrate, pretext. The court also held that a reasonable jury could not find that the supervisor's actions were the but-for cause of Wal-Mart's termination of plaintiff based on the record. View "Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was injured when he tripped on a pipe welded to the deck of a jacked-up offshore drilling rig, he filed a negligence action against Smart Fabricators under the Jones Act. The district court denied plaintiff's motion to remand to state court, granting Smart Fabricator's motion for summary judgment. The district court's ruling was based on its conclusion that plaintiff did not qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act.The Fifth Circuit reversed and held that plaintiff qualifies as a seaman under the Jones Act where plaintiff has shown that he had a substantial connection both in nature and duration to the vessels on which he worked. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff satisfied the duration requirement of the Chandris test because he spent over 70 percent of his employment with SmartFab aboard a rig adjacent to an inland pier and around 19 percent of his employment aboard a rig on the Outer Continental Shelf. The court also held that plaintiff's connection to the vessel was substantial in nature and he satisfied the nature requirement of the Chandris test where plaintiff's work on vessels exposed him to the perils of the sea. The court explained that, although plaintiff was a land-based welder who went home every evening, such work aboard vessels did not disqualify him as a Jones Act seaman. The court remanded with instructions to remand the matter to state court. View "Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas, LLC" on Justia Law

JDC sought a preliminary injunction against its former employee for breach of a non-compete agreement. The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction in all its parts and with no concessions.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court, after acknowledging the agreement to be overbroad, erred in declining to adjudicate reformation of the agreement. In this case, the district court should have considered reformation of the agreement in the process of deciding the preliminary injunction motion. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded to the district court to allow relevant evidence and argument from the parties concerning reformation. Furthermore, the court noted that the district court should then decide what reformation, if any, would be reasonable under Texas law, and proceed to adjudicate the preliminary injunction motion in the light of its findings on reformation. View "Calhoun v. Jack Doheny Companies, Inc." on Justia Law