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

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

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