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

Jerrell Squyres sued his former employer, The Heico Companies and its subsidiaries, for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the companies. In July 2012, Squyres filed an employment-discrimination action against the employer. On September 18, 2012, in his response to the employer’s motion, Squyres raised the possibility of amending his complaint to “ple[a]d quantum meruit and/or fraudulent misrepresentation claims” instead. On October 31, 2012, the district court granted in part and denied in part Appellees’ motion to dismiss and entered a scheduling order that set a discovery deadline of June 21, 2013. At that point, the discovery deadline was nearly eight months away. After the district court entered the scheduling order, Squyres filed his second amended complaint, re-pleading the age-discrimination claims. The employer filed another motion to dismiss, but this time, the district court denied the motion. The employer answered the second amended complaint on January 8, 2013. When the answer was filed, five months still remained before the June discovery deadline. The employer contended Squyres was served interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission on February 20, 2013. Squyres did not respond to these requests until April 30, 2013. Squyres also did not contact Appellees’ counsel about scheduling depositions until May 22, 2013. After a series of continuations, in late July 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to extend the scheduling order deadlines and to continue the trial, but the district court denied the motion based on the “long period of time in which the parties have had to arrange discovery.” The district court emphasized that “[t]he time has come for the parties and their counsel to be held accountable for the deadlines issued by this Court nine months ago.” The employer then filed a motion for summary judgment. Despite a warning from the court for no more extensions of time, Squyres requested leave to amend his complaint on August 22. Squyres sought to add a fraud claim and drop his breach-of-contract claim. Squyres filed his motion to amend unopposed, citing the earlier quid pro quo agreement. The employer, however, filed a response in opposition to Squyres’ motion, admitting the quid pro quo agreement, but arguing that Squyres had not sought amendment in a reasonable time after their June agreement and that “the circumstances ha[d] changed since that discussion in June.” The district court ultimately denied Squyres’ motion. Upon review of Squyers' arguments on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court, finding that that court acted within ints discretion when it denied Squyres' motions. View "Jerrell Squyres v. Heico Companies, L.L.C., et al" on Justia Law

In 2011, Micah Phillips (then a 12-year veteran of the Dallas Fire Department) announced his candidacy in the Democratic primary for a seat on the Dallas County Commissioners Court. At that time, city laws prevented city employees from seeking office in any county overlapping the city of Dallas (as Dallas County did). The City subsequently terminated Phillips for violating those laws. This suit was dismissed on the pleadings by the district court, and Phillips challenged those laws both facially and as applied to him. Finding no reversible error, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. View "Phillips v. City of Dallas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellee Tammy Bryant filed suit against her employer, the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services, and supervisor, Kim Littleton, in her individual capacity, claiming violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the bases of sovereign and qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion in full. After review of the trial court record, the Fifth Circuit concluded the Department was entitled to sovereign immunity on Bryant’s self-care claims and that Littleton was entitled to qualified immunity on Bryant’s interference claims. View "Bryant v. Texas Dept of Aging & Disab." on Justia Law

Rebecca Breaux brought an age discrimination action against her employer ASC Industries on May 6, 2012. On May 24, 2013, Breaux’s attorney Lurlia Oglesby filed a statement in accordance with Rule 25(a)(3) noting that Breaux had died. The district court stayed the action pending the substitution of parties. After the ninety days allotted for the substitution of a party passed without any motion being filed, ASC Industries moved for the action to be dismissed. On the next business day, September 3, 2013, the district court granted ASC Industries’ motion to dismiss. On October 1, 2013, Oglesby filed a motion on behalf of Breaux’s estate to alter or amend the judgment of dismissal. The issue this case presented for the Fifth Circuit's centered on whether personal service of a suggestion of death on a deceased-plaintiff’s estate was required in order for the ninety-day time limit to run for the substitution of a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 25. The Court held that personal service was required. View "Sampson v. ASC Industries" on Justia Law

Justin Richardson appealed the district court's dismissal of his first amended complaint, which alleged that Axion Logistics, L.L.C. terminated his employment in violation of Louisiana's whistleblower statute. Richardson was briefly employed by Axion from February 7, 2012, to May 21, 2012. Axion promoted him to general manager of the company's Louisiana operations shortly after he was hired. While serving as general manager, Richardson became aware that two Axion employees, Jimmy Hall and Don Ward, were fraudulently billing Dow Chemical, and Axion client, for mileage reimbursement. Richardson first learned of the fraudulent billing when Andy Wheat, whom Hall had told about these billing practices, showed Richardson the discrepant time sheets. Richardson reported the timesheet manipulations up the chain of command. Along with Wheat, he called Axion's former president, Steve Seymour, to report the over-billing. Seymour had previously tried to fire Hall, in part for his fraudulent billing, but Gary Grant, Axion's CEO, would not allow it. On May 2, 2012, Richardson and Wheat met with Grant. Grant instructed them to submit a written repor, which they did via e-mail later that same day. The following week, Richardson attended a dinner with Axion management, who spent much of the evening criticizing Richardson's job performance and qualifications. About a week later, Seymour informed Richardson that he had not made a good impression with Grant and the rest of Axion's management. Seymour terminated Richardson's employment on the stated ground that he “was not a good fit” for the company. Axion moved to dismiss Richardson's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Richardson amended his complaint. Axion again moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the motion, entering a dismissal with prejudice. Richardson appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Because the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Richardson v. Axion Logistics, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the captain of a crew boat, filed suit against his employer and his supervisor under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 50101, and general maritime law, seeking maintenance and cure and damages. All parties cross-appealed the district court's judgment. The court concluded that the district court's finding that plaintiff merely strained his back while lifting a hatch cover is not clearly erroneous; the district court's findings regarding the weather and condition of the seas at the time and location of the incident are not clearly erroneous; the district court properly ruled against plaintiff on all of his unseaworthiness claims; the district court's finding that defendants were not negligent is fully supported by the record; the court vacated the maintenance and cure award against the supervisor where the maintenance and cure duty extends only to the seaman's employer; and the McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp. rule precludes plaintiff from obtaining maintenance and cure from his employer in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment to the extent the district court rejected plaintiff's Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims; vacated the awards against the employer and supervisor in their entirety; and rendered judgment in favor of the employer and supervisor. View "Meche v. Key Energy Servs., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621-634. Plaintiff alleged discrimination and retaliation under the Act, but defendant never answered or defended the suit. After the district court entered a default judgment against defendant, defendant filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. The court concluded that evidence adduced at a default judgment "prove-up" hearing cannot cure a deficient complaint. In this case, plaintiff's complaint contained very few factual allegations, but his testimony at the damages hearing provided evidence on the elements of his claim that were absent from his pleadings. Accordingly, the court vacated the entry of default judgment and remanded. View "Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assoc, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the TWC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), alleging that the TWC discriminated against him when it appointed another person to a management position over him. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to show that he was clearly better qualified for the position or that the TWC's bases for its decision were otherwise affected by his national origin. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court properly adopted the magistrate's Report and Recommendation granting summary judgment in favor of the TWC. View "Martinez v. Texas Workforce Comm'n" on Justia Law

Kristy Sones worked as a nurse for LHC, a home-health company, until she was terminated shortly after she had an epileptic seizure. The EEOC brought an enforcement action on her behalf against LHC under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment for LHC on all claims. The court affirmed summary judgment on the EEOC's failure-to-accommodate claim; affirmed partial summary judgment to the extent Sones was a Field Nurse because she was not qualified for that position; but concluded that there were genuine disputes of material fact remaining as to (1) whether Sones was promoted to Team Leader, (2) if so, whether LHC could reasonably accommodate her disability, (3) whether LHC engaged in the required interactive process to seek accommodation, and (4) whether Sones was terminated on account of her disability. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings as to these issues. View "EEOC v. LHC Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against their former employers, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants' hiring of undocumented workers resulted in the depression of their wages. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' second amended complaint for failure to establish RICO standing, as well as denied their motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The court concluded that, without an allegation as to the proportion of undocumented workers within defendants' workforce, it is impossible to determine whether the hiring of undocumented workers could have had any plausible effect on overall wages. Further, if plaintiffs are alleging that defendants' hiring of illegal workers depressed wages throughout the industry, this theory is implausible too. Therefore, plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege proximate cause. Further, plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to establish that they suffered any injury, must less an injury under RICO. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice and denying plaintiffs leave to file the third amended complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Varela v. Gonzales" on Justia Law