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

Plaintiff filed suit against Tesoro, alleging that Tesoro terminated his employment for engaging in protected activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), 18 U.S.C. 1514A. The district court held in part that plaintiff had failed to state a claim and in part that some of the allegations had not been properly exhausted before OSHA. The court concluded that, although plaintiff did not satisfy the applicable exhaustion requirement for some of his allegations and failed to state a claim for others, he did state a claim relating to his investigation of Tesoro's accounting practices. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wallace v. Tesoro Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, NOV, after he was terminated, alleging claims of age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621, et seq., and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), Tex. Lab. Code Ann. 21.051, 21.055. ROA. 22–28. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of NOV and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that the evidence plaintiff has identified was sufficient to allow a finding that age discrimination was the cause of his termination in violation of the ADEA. However, in regards to the retaliation claim, the court concluded that plaintiff was unable to establish the causal link in light of the temporal gap of 8–10 months between plaintiff’s complaint to HR and the adverse employment action and the absence of evidence that the supervisor even knew of the complaint to Human Resources about the “old farts” comment. Accordingly, the court affirmed as to the retaliation claim but reversed the discrimination claim. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Goudeau v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the County, District Attorney Pat Lykos, and one of her assistants, Rachel Palmer, for causing their termination by the college that had contracted to oversee breath alcohol testing for the Sheriff's Office. Plaintiffs also raised state law claims. The district court dismissed all of the claims. The court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the County that it ratified Palmer's and Lykos's alleged retaliatory campaign; reversed the dismissal of the tortious interference with a contract claim; reversed the dismissal of tortious interference claims; and reversed the award of attorneys' fees. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Culbertson v. Lykos" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against FISD, alleging that FISD discriminated against him because of his race and retaliated against him for reporting the discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), Tex. Labor Code 21.051, 21.055. The court concluded that FISD's collateral-estoppel claim fails because plaintiff did not have an adequate opportunity to litigate his pending discrimination and retaliation claims before the hearing examiner; FISD is not entitled to summary judgment against plaintiff's discrimination claim because FISD conceded at oral argument that there is a genuine dispute for pretext and a genuine dispute of material fact exists for whether the allegedly discriminatory animus is imputed to FISD; and FISD is not entitled to summary judgment against plaintiff's retaliation claim where there is a genuine dispute of material fact for why plaintiff's contract was nonrenewed. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Frisco Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Ben Lack was employed as a draftsman at Marshall Hunn's architectural design firm. After Lack resigned from his position from a project for Hunn's client, Dan Wilson Homes, Dan Wilson hired Lack to complete the project. Hunn filed suit alleging that Lack and Wilson secretly agreed to cut Hunn out of the business relationship. The district court granted summary judgment to Lack and Wilson on many claims and ruled in favor of them on the remaining claims. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Lack and Wilson never made the alleged secret agreement and Hunn's legal theories lack merit. View "Hunn v. Dan Wilson Homes Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, Bell, for age discrimination after he lost his job during a reduction-in-force. After rendering a take-nothing money judgment on the verdict, the district court, acting on plaintiff’s post-trial motion, enjoined Bell from discriminating on the basis of age anywhere, anytime, “especially during reductions in force,” and awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief until his case was effectively concluded; this delay deprived Bell of the ability to present relevant evidence and defend itself from what turned out to be a sweeping and indeterminate injunction; and because the court vacated the only relief on which plaintiff “prevailed,” he was not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "Peterson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a probationary Border Patrol agent, filed suit against the Department, alleging that he had been unlawfully terminated because of his race and color. The court concluded that, even assuming that plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination, the government has asserted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination, lack of candor. Plaintiff failed to show that the Department's decision was made in bad faith and there is no evidence of disparate treatment. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's claim that he was similarly situated to permanent Border Patrol agents who were present at the Checkpoint at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department. View "Thomas v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, alleging that they failed to compensate plaintiffs for their overtime work as required by section 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 207. In Martin v. Spring Break '83 Productions, L.L.C., the court held that a private settlement reached over a bona fide dispute regarding FLSA claims was enforceable despite the general prohibition against the waiver of FLSA claims. In this case, the court declined to extend Martin and held that the generic, broad state court settlement release in this action does not bar plaintiffs’ subsequent FLSA claims. The court also held that the alternative defense of res judicata failed. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bodle v. TXL Mortgage Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, former Chief Deputy in the Sheriff's office, filed suit against the Sheriff, raising claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Louisiana Constitution, and the Louisiana whistleblower statutes. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff. The court concluded that plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim failed because plaintiff's complaints about the recordings at issue were made within the scope of his employment and, therefore, his speech was not protected by the First Amendment. The court agreed with the district court that it would have been a waste of judicial resources to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where plaintiff's state law claims were neither novel nor complex; the court concluded that plaintiff has not shown that the Sheriff’s Office committed an actual violation of Louisiana law and, therefore, the district court was correct to dismiss his claim under the Louisiana Whistleblower Statute, La. Rev. Stat. 23:967; and La. Rev. Stat. 42: 1169 does not provide a private right of action for plaintiff to sue in either state or federal court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wilson v. Tregre" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who is white, filed suit alleging state and federal claims of workplace retaliation and discrimination. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of the government's motion to exclude certain testimony offered by plaintiff and a police department captain and dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims. The court agreed with the district court that the statements at issue lacked foundation and plaintiff cannot show that all reasonable persons would reject the district court's decision to strike the testimony. The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Title VII race discrimination claim, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), where plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact that he was treated less favorably because of his race than were other similarly situated employees who were not white, under nearly identical circumstances. Assuming that the district court dismissed plaintiff's race retaliation claim, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a), sua sponte and without notice, the court held that the dismissal was harmless and affirmed the judgment. View "Paske, Jr. v. Fitzgerald" on Justia Law