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

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

Petitioner, claimant's former employer, appealed the Board's affirmance of the ALJ's order holding petitioner liable for medical expenses attributable to claimant’s asbestosis, under the Longshore Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901–950. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence for the ALJ to conclude that petitioner did not rebut the presumption of a valid LHWCA claim because it did not provide factual doubt. Therefore, the court affirmed as to this issue. The court applied a liberal causation standard when determining the coverage of initial and subsequent injuries, and affirmed the ALJ's order requiring petitioner to reimburse claimant for annual flu and pneumonia vaccines and the treatment of conditions including pneumonia and bronchitis. View "Ramsay Scarlett & Co. v. DOWCP" on Justia Law

Prosperity entered into contracts with a number of F&M bankers that included covenants not to compete, not to solicit, and not to disclose confidential information obtained while working at Prosperity. Prosperity sought to enforce the restrictive covenants under Texas law, but the district court denied Prosperity's application for injunctive relief. Texas generally allows covenants not to compete so long as they are limited both geographically and temporally, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. 15.50(a). Oklahoma generally does not, Okla. Stat. tit. 15, 217. The court concluded that, with respect to the noncompetition covenants, the choice-of-law provision is likely unenforceable,and the agreement is unlikely to fall within Oklahoma’s goodwill exception to its ban on noncompetition agreements. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of Prosperity’s request for an injunction seeking to enforce these clauses because Prosperity cannot meet the important “substantial likelihood of success” factor. The court concluded that, with respect to the nonsolicitation covenant, the choice-of-law provision is likely enforceable. Therefore, the court remanded to the district court to permit it to decide in the first instance whether the agreement is enforceable under Texas law as is, or pursuant to a modification, and whether the other equitable factors warrant a preliminary injunction. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the nondisclosure agreement was likely enforceable and denied the request for a preliminary injunction on the ground that Prosperity failed to establish likelihood of success or irreparable injury. View "Cardoni v. Prosperity Bank" on Justia Law

Murphy Oil petitioned for review of the Board's decision, holding that Murphy Oil violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a), by requiring its employees to agree to resolve all employment-related claims through individual arbitration, and by taking steps to enforce the unlawful agreements in federal district court. The Board also held that both the Arbitration Agreement and Revised Arbitration Agreement at issue were unlawful because employees would reasonably construe them to prohibit filing Board charges. The court granted Murphy Oil’s petition, and held that the corporation did not commit unfair labor practices by requiring employees to sign its arbitration agreement or seeking to enforce that agreement in federal district court. The court denied Murphy Oil’s petition insofar as the Board’s order directed the corporation to clarify language in its arbitration agreement applicable to employees hired prior to March 2012 to ensure they understand they are not barred from filing charges with the Board. View "Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from Securiguard's treatment of certain break periods for guards stationed at a Navy base. The guards filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., seeking damages for back pay. The district court granted summary judgment for Securiguard. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the guards’ claims based on the main gate, the truck gate, and the 6:00 a.m. through midnight shifts at the flightline gate when the mandatory commute time was de minimis. However, because a jury could find that the remaining meal breaks did not allow enough time for the employees to use the break for their own purposes to qualify as noncompensable, the court reversed and remanded. View "Naylor v. Securiguard, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two waiters, filed suit against the restaurant they worked at, claiming that the restaurant violated federal law by requiring them to share tips with the restaurant’s “coffeeman.” The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the restaurant, holding that the coffeeman was an employee who customarily and regularly received tips. The court concluded that determining whether an employee is one who “customarily and regularly receives tips” is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires a case-by-case analysis of the employee’s duties and activities. In this case, there is evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that the coffeeman’s level of customer interaction in a customer service role was non-existent or minor enough such that he is more similar to a cook or a dishwasher than he is to a waiter or a busboy. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Montano v. Montrose Restaurant Ass'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging claims of wrongful discharge and defamation. The district court dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Concluding that the court has jurisdiction over the appeal, the court certified the following question to the Mississippi Supreme Court: Whether in Mississippi an employer may be liable for a wrongful discharge of an employee for storing a firearm in a locked vehicle on company property in a manner that is consistent with Miss. Code Ann. 45-9-55. View "Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a former IRS agent, filed suit alleging that he was fired in retaliation for protected whistleblowing. Petitioner alleged that he uncovered that Exxon had perpetrated a $500 million tax fraud and that IRS officials covered it up. The court concluded, however, that petitioner's disclosure was not protected because the court agreed with the Board’s finding that petitioner failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation of government involvement in Exxon’s alleged wrongdoing. The court also concluded that petitioner's remaining argument under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9) is exhausted. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Aviles v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a police officer, filed suit against the City, alleging unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq. After a jury found the City liable and awarded plaintiff damages, both parties appealed. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on liability because plaintiff produced evidence sufficient to find - under University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar’s but-for standard of causation - that his Crime Reduction Unit (CRU) supervisors, motivated by retaliatory intent, intended to cause and did cause his suspension; affirmed the district court’s order upholding the jury’s past compensatory damages award because plaintiff produced specific evidence that he suffered mental anguish and reputational harm until his suspension was overturned; reversed and remanded the district court’s order vacating the jury’s future compensatory damages award because plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to support his claim of future reputational harm, and instructed the district court on remand to consider remittitur; and affirmed the district court’s order denying the City’s motion for a mistrial because the district court found after a thorough investigation that the discovery of the prior jury’s notes would not affect the jury’s deliberations or the jury’s verdict. View "Zamora v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Freescale and Manpower under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112, alleging discriminatory termination and a claim under the Texas Labor Code alleging retaliatory termination based on her filing of a workers’ compensation claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to raise an inference of pretext, and therefore, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's ADA claim. However, the court concluded that plaintiff's retaliation claim failed because Freescale did not provide plaintiff's workers' compensation coverage and because there is no evidence that Manpower acted with a retaliatory motive. View "Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor" on Justia Law