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

Sanderson Farms petitioned for review of the OSHRC's citation for an unguarded arbor and projecting key in violation of the mechanical power-transmission apparatus regulation, 29 C.F.R. 1910.219. In regard to the unguarded arbor, the court concluded that the ALJ did not err when she found that the arbor was a “vital and integral part of the power transmission apparatus;" substantial evidence established that Sanderson Farms possessed knowledge of the violative conditions; and there is sufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s characterization of the violation as serious but of low gravity. In regard to the projecting key, the court concluded that there is not substantial evidence on the record to sustain the citation because the cited standard was inapplicable. The Secretary and ALJ erred when applying 29 C.F.R. 1910.219(c)(4)(i) instead of 29 C.F.R. 1910.219(h)(1) to the protruding key. Accordingly, the court denied the petition as to the unguarded arbor and granted the petition as to the projecting key. View "Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Perez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., against JFS after JFS revoked its employment offer for a field engineer position at a mining site after learning that plaintiff had a rotator cuff impairment that prevented him from lifting his right arm above the shoulder. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of JFS. The court concluded that the district court's finding that plaintiff could not prove that he was disabled or a qualified individual was erroneous becuase it ignored Congress's expansion of the definition of disability when it amended the ADA in 2008. Under this more relaxed standard, the court concluded that evidence exists supporting a finding either that plaintiff is disabled or was regarded as disabled. Because a factual dispute exists on these issues, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded. View "Cannon v. Jacobs Field Servs." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, employed within the CDC in a bio-terrorism preparedness program, filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b) and 2671 et seq., alleging that his employers’ actions constituted numerous torts, including fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for reporting perceived public health threats. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), finding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction based upon its conclusion that plaintiff’s FTCA claims were precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. The court agreed with the district court and concluded that the CSRA provides plaintiff's sole remedy against his employer because he is a federal employee, and due to the nature of his employment-related claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Tubesing v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Metrocare and others, alleging various federal and state law claims. The district court dismissed plaintiff's Texas Health & Safety Code claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and granted summary judgment for defendants on all other claims. The court concluded that plaintiff has failed to offer sufficient evidence that Metrocare’s articulated reason for firing him is a pretext for discrimination and therefore the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of Metrocare on plaintiff's claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.; Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's procedural due process claim because he received an adequate name-clearing hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Miller v. Metrocare Servs." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination suit against the Commission. The district court granted summary judgment to the Commission and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that most of plaintiff's various retaliation claims are unsupported by the record and are without merit. In regard to the claims that merit further discussion, the court concluded that plaintiff's mere assignment of janitorial duties, without further description or detail about what those duties actually were, does not state a materially adverse action; plaintiff produced no evidence to show that the delay in her evaluation or the failure to grant her 4% step increase - accompanied by a right of appeal that she did not exercise - constituted a materially adverse action; and the denial of a reassignment was not, as a matter of law, an adverse action. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Commission with respect to these retaliation claims. In regard to plaintiff's retaliatory termination claim, the court concluded that - based on the record before the court indicating that the Commission discharged some employees for excessive force, but not others - the mixed record constitutes substantial evidence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s discharge would have occurred “but for” exercising her protected rights. Therefore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the Commission on this issue. The court vacated as to the retaliatory termination claim and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Wheat v. Florida Parish Juvenile Justice Comm'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Sage, alleging racial discrimination, wrongful termination, and retaliation, in violation of Title VII as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a), and 42 U.S.C. 1981, as well as comparable Texas law and other state law claims. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of her retaliation claims. The court affirmed the judgment because plaintiff, who was a supervisor familiar with company employment policies, has not created a genuine material fact issue that she suffered an adverse employment action. View "Brandon v. Sage Corporation." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a negligence suit against defendants after he was injured while employed as a boilermaker by Wyatt. CP entered into a contract with Wyatt to perform work on a vacuum tower. CP and Wyatt signed a Master Services Agreement (MSA). At issue was whether a non-operating partner in a joint-venture qualifies as a “statutory employer” as that term is used in the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (LWCA), LA. Stat. Ann. 23:1021 et seq., even though the operating partner signed a contract with a contractor that did not specifically designate the non-operating partner as a “statutory employer.” Whether viewed in terms of the inherent legal relationships among CP, Excel, and the joint venture and Wyatt, or proper inferences drawn from the MSA, the court did not think the parties’ failure to name or require the signature of Excel in the MSA can overcome the broad presumption of statutory employer status approved by Louisiana courts. The very purpose of CP and Excel in creating the joint venture was to give CP the exact operational authority it exercised on behalf of the joint venture when it signed the MSA with Wyatt. The parties’ written contract, in essence, “recognized” the parties to the joint venture as the statutory employers through their authorized agent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wright v. Excel Paralubes" on Justia Law

Entergy filed a petition with the Board, arguing that Entergy's dispatchers are supervisors under Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 152(11). The Board affirmed the ALJ's decision that dispatchers are not supervisors under Section 2(11). About the same time that Entergy first filed its petition to reclassify dispatchers as supervisors, it demanded that intervenor, the Union, remove all references to dispatchers from the collective-bargaining agreement. Entergy refused the Union's request to bargain and the Board subsequently filed a charge against Entergy for violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA. The Board granted summary judgment and held that Entergy had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5). The court affirmed the Board's decision in all but one respect: the court reversed the Board's determination that dispatchers do not “assign” field employees to “places” through the exercise of "independent judgment." The court remanded for further proceedings. The court denied the Board's request for enforcement. View "Entergy Mississippi, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Department on his claims of employment discrimination in violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-1, retaliation in violation of GINA, and national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed the first claim because plaintiff presented no evidence that the Department requested, required, or purchased his genetic information, or discriminated against him on the basis of genetic information; the district court's conclusion that the timeline of events and the Department's submitted evidence showed that its actions were motivated by plaintiff's refusal to take a stress test; and the district court's findings - that the timing of plaintiff's placements on administrative duty showed that the Department’s motive was ensuring compliance with the Wellness Program and furthering its goals, not discriminating against plaintiff because of his national origin - were not erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dept." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, alleging claims of retaliation after her attempt to rescind her resignation was denied. Plaintiff offered her resignation, but before she finished her employment, she testified against the Executive Director, claiming sexual harassment. Then plaintiff attempted to rescind the resignation but the Executive Director rejected her rescission. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment because rejecting an employee’s rescission of resignation can sometimes constitute an adverse employment action and because plaintiff has demonstrated a substantial conflict of evidence on the question of whether her employer would have taken the action ‘but for’ her testimony. View "Porter v. Houma Terrebonne Hous. Auth." on Justia Law