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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging that he was wrongfully discharged for having a firearm in his vehicle parked in the employee lot. The court held that the general public's access to Lot 1B was "restricted or limited," and Miss. Code. Ann. 45-9-55(2), the statutory exception to the right of an employee to have a firearm in his vehicle, applies. The court need not consider defendants' remaining arguments. View "McIntyre v. Nissan North America" on Justia Law

After Gregory Tramaine Miller was crushed to death between the couplers of two rail cars while working as a conductor trainee with the railroad, plaintiffs filed suit under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA).The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the railroad, holding that Miller's failure to establish 3-Step Protection before going between rail cars was the sole cause of his death, that his going between moving rail cars was unforeseeable, and that plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of any negligent acts by the railroad attributable to causing Miller's death. View "Gray v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Maverick County willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and that the Deputies were entitled to backpay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the majority of the class members to participate in the suit; the district court did not commit reversible error by not striking the Deputies' testimony; the district court's finding of willfulness was not erroneous; and the award of attorneys' fees was not an abuse of discretion. The court remanded to the district court to consider an award of attorneys' fees incurred on appeal. View "Cruz v. Maverick County" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction enforcing a non-competition agreement between defendant and her former employer Realogy. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion and its decision satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. In this case, the district court properly concluded that Realogy had a substantial likelihood of success regarding the enforceability of its non-competition agreement with defendant under Texas law. The court lifted the stay previously imposed and remanded this matter, instructing the district court to conduct a trial on the permanent injunction as soon as possible and, when rendering its judgment, to reweigh the equities with respect to the term of the injunction in light of the time that has passed during the pendency of this appeal. View "Realogy Holdings Corp. v. Jongebloed" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held, consistent with the dissent in Faludi v. U.S. Shale Sols., 950 F.3d 269, 271 (5th Cir. 2020), that an employee who is paid a daily rate is not paid on a "salary basis" under 29 C.F.R. 541.602(a).In this case, plaintiff filed suit against his employer, Helix, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that Helix did not pay him on a "salary basis" because it calculated his pay based on a daily, rather than weekly, rate. Helix countered that plaintiff's daily rate was greater than the weekly salary requirement under Labor Department regulations. Helix argued that, so long as plaintiff worked at least a single day during any particular week, he would receive more than the weekly salary requirement, and was therefore paid on a "salary basis" under Labor Department regulations.The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Helix and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that plaintiff was paid on a daily rate—so he was paid "with" (not "without") "regard to the number of days or hours worked," in direct conflict with the plain language of section 541.602(a)(1). Therefore, plaintiff was not paid on a salary basis. View "Hewitt v. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment in a Fair Labor Standards Act suit brought by plaintiff for unpaid overtime wages. The court held that the district court properly held that plaintiff was exempt, as a highly compensated employee, from the statutory mandate that employers provide overtime compensation for employees. In this case, plaintiff was an organ procurement coordinator, engaged in a literal procurement for the company. Therefore, the court held that plaintiff's duties directly related to the management or general business operations, that performance was customary and regular, and plaintiff waived his argument that he performed primarily manual work. View "Smith v. Ochsner Health System" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that American Marine was liable for most of plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff was working as a seaman for American Marine when he was injured on board a vessel owned by the employer.The court held that American Marine has failed to demonstrate that the district court’s finding of unseaworthiness was clear error; American Marine failed to establish that plaintiff's accident was mostly his own fault where the district court clearly evaluated the evidence and made no inconsistent findings about causation, finding plaintiff 20 percent at fault; American Marine failed to carry its burden of demonstrating clear error in the district court's choice between competing experts; the district court's finding of diminished earning capacity was not clearly erroneous; in regard to the district court's award of past medical expenses because of American Marine's negligence, plaintiff's failure to prove that he was obliged to reimburse his attorneys for his medical expenses is irrelevant; and the district court did not clearly err in crediting plaintiff's testimony about his current condition. View "Luwisch v. American Marine Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Plaintiff alleged that the Board of the HCC violated his First Amendment right to free speech when the Board publicly censured him.The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff's allegations established standing and a state law claim for relief under section 1983 for a First Amendment violation. In this case, plaintiff alleged that the censure was issued to punish him for exercising his free speech rights and caused him mental anguish. Under the court's precedent, plaintiff's allegation of retaliatory censure is enough to establish an injury in fact. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the section 1983 claim for damages for further proceedings. However, plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because he is no longer a Board trustee. Therefore, the court granted HCC's motion for partial dismissal of plaintiff's appeal, instructing the district court to dismiss plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief after remand. View "Wilson v. Houston Community College System" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs, property tax consultant employees, holding that plaintiffs were not exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because the firm pointed to no job responsibility carried out by a property tax consultant that related in any way to the management or general business operations of the company or its customers. The court also held that the fluctuating-workweek method did not apply in this case, because the preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that there was no mutual agreement between plaintiffs and the firm that plaintiffs would be paid a fixed weekly salary regardless of the number of hours worked. View "Fraser v. Patrick O'Connor & Assoc." on Justia Law

After the EEOC brought an enforcement action against Vantage on behalf of an employee, Vantage moved to dismiss based on the EEOC's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In a one-sentence judgment, the district court agreed and dismissed.The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the EEOC intake questionnaire was sufficient as a charge and, although verified outside of the filing period, was "timely" by virtue of the relation-back regulation. The court noted that the dilatory response of the employee's counsel to the EEOC's months-long requests to file his client's verified charge was inexcusable, and counsel should never ignore applicable Americans with Disabilities law and regulations. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision in Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 U.S. 106, 113, 118, 122 S. Ct. 1145, 1149, 1152 (2002), and Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 402, 128 S. Ct. 1147, 1158 (2008), were designed to accomplish fair and efficient resolution of discrimination complaints filed more often than not by pro se individuals. View "EEOC v. Vantage Energy Services, Inc." on Justia Law