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

A federal whistleblower statute, 41 U.S.C. 4712, does not render unenforceable an arbitration agreement between plaintiff and his former employer, Intratek. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court correctly enforced the arbitration agreement between plaintiff and Intratek. However, the court held that the district court erred in compelling arbitration of claims not covered by that agreement. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. Therefore, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Robertson v. Intratek Computer, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit treated appellees' Petition for Rehearing En Banc as a Petition for Panel Rehearing and granted it, withdrawing its prior opinion and substituting the following opinion.The Employees appealed the denial of their motions for judgment as a matter of law in their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action, and 4JLJ cross-appealed the sanctions and cost awards. The court dismissed the Employees' appeal based on lack of jurisdiction because the Employees did not timely file a notice of appeal. The court also lacked jurisdiction over 4JLJ's cross-appeal of the order imposing monetary sanctions, because 4JLJ's June 24, 2019, appeal was untimely with respect to the pre-judgment imposition of monetary sanctions. However, 4JLJ's June 24 appeal was timely with respect to the June 3 post-judgment order allocating costs. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding cost allocation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) where the district court articulated its reasons in its order and based its decision on facts in the record suggesting that 4JLJ had engaged in evasive discovery practices. Accordingly, the court affirmed the cost allocation. View "Edwards v. 4JLJ, LLC" on Justia Law

After the Board certified two groups of employees of STP to join a collective bargaining unit represented by the Union, STP refused to recognize and bargain with the Union on the basis that its "unit supervisors" and "maintenance supervisors" are excluded from the bargaining unit pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act.The Fifth Circuit reversed the Board's bargaining order and denied enforcement, holding that the Board's conclusions that the employees are not statutory supervisors are premised on errors of law and lack substantial evidence. In this case, the Board lacked substantial evidence to find that unit supervisors do not "responsibly direct" work and maintenance supervisors do not "assign" work. Therefore, STP's unit supervisors and maintenance supervisors are statutory supervisors under 29 U.S.C. 152(11). View "STP Nuclear Operating Co. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former medical school professor at the University of North Texas Health Science Center, filed suit against various professors and school administrators under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that they violated his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. Defendants voted to recommend firing plaintiff after conducting a hearing to address a student's sexual harassment claim against him.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity and rendered judgment in favor of defendants, holding that plaintiff's deprivations of due process were not clearly established constitutional rights. In this case, the court found no merit in plaintiff's claim that one of the defendants was not impartial because the defendant knew the accuser in a university proceeding, and concluded that this was not enough to establish a due process claim of bias. The court also held that, although the Committee should have heard the accuser's testimony, it was not clearly established at the time that, in university disciplinary hearings where the outcome depends on credibility, the Due Process Clause demands the opportunity to confront witnesses or some reasonable alternative. Therefore, the district court erred in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. View "Walsh v. Hodge" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, REJ, alleging claims of hostile work environment, gender discrimination, disparate pay, Title VII and Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law retaliation, 42 U.S.C. 1985 conspiracy, and breach of contract.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's disparate pay, hostile work environment, and breach of contract claims. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of attorney's fees. However, the court held that plaintiff has satisfied her burden under the McDonnell Douglas framework to show that whether her termination was pretext for unlawful retaliation remains a disputed issue of fact that must be determined by the appropriate fact finder. Therefore, the court reversed and vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim. View "Badgerow v. REJ Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

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