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

USW appealed the district court's vacatur of an arbitral award against Conoco involving dismissal of a refinery employee who failed a workplace drug test. The court affirmed the district court's judgment that Conoco did not clearly and unmistakably agree to arbitrate arbitrability and affirmed the district court's determination that the employee's discharge was not arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement and its decision to vacate the arbitration award. View "ConocoPhillips, Inc. v. Local 13-0555 United Steelworkers Int'l Union" on Justia Law

In this diversity case, at issue was whether plaintiff, a Mississippi resident injured in Mississippi while working for an Alabama resident contractor, had an action in tort for damages against the employer's worker's compensation insurer because of the insurer's intentional bad-faith refusal to pay him worker's compensation when due. The court concluded that under Mississippi's choice-of-law principles, plaintiff's tort suit was governed by Mississippi substantive law. Further, the district court erroneously concluded that, under Mississippi law, the insurer's alleged intentional bad faith refusal to pay plaintiff's worker's compensation was merely a breach of contract and not an independent tort committed by the carrier outside the scope of plaintiff's employment as the Mississippi Supreme Court held in Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Holland. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed a summary judgment in favor of the LWCC, which cross-appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the state claims plaintiffs brought against LWCC, the court need not decide whether the district court correctly determined that LWCC's decision to withhold consent on the settlement was a proper exercise of its power under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901-950. Accordingly, the court reversed summary judgment and rendered a judgment of dismissal for want of jurisdiction. View "Venable, et al. v. Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the former employee of the standing trustee for the Western district of Louisiana (defendant), filed suit against defendant alleging violation of the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law (LEDL), Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:301-03, 23:323. Defendant removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). The district court determined that removal was proper, and that defendant should be granted summary judgment because he did not qualify as an "employer" under the LEDL. The court concluded that defendant acts under officers of the United States and fell within section 1442(a)(1)'s purview, and defendant has averred a colorable federal defense and was entitled to remove this case under the federal officer removal statute. The court held that summary judgment was proper because defendant did not qualify as an employer under the LEDL. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bell v. Thornburg" on Justia Law

Island petitioned for review of a modification of a benefits award under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWC Act), 33 U.S.C. 901-950. Island's employee had filed claims for benefits under the LHWC Act after he injured his knee on an oil production platform. Island argued that the original judgment was not eligible for modification or alternatively, the facts did not support the modification. The court concluded that both Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Ass'n and O'Keefe v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc. clearly established that contrary to Island's position, mistakes of fact were not limited to newly discovered and previously unattainable evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the Benefit Review Board's (BRB) decision on this basis. Alternatively, the court concluded that there was evidence to support the ALJ's finding, and the BRB correctly affirmed the modification of the employee's award to include permanent partial benefits. View "Island Operating Co., Inc., et al. v. DOWCP, et al." on Justia Law

D.R. Horton petitioned for review of the Board's holding that D.R. Horton had violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., by requiring its employees to sign an arbitration agreement that, among other things, prohibited an employee from pursuing claims in a collective or class action. After addressing issues regarding the composition of the Board, the court concluded that the Board's decision did not give proper weight to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 2. The court upheld the Board, though, on requiring D.R. Horton to clarify with its employees that the arbitration agreement did not eliminate their rights to pursue claims of unfair labor practices with the Board. View "D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on her retaliation claim, which she claimed resulted from her complaints about sexual harassment. The court held that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the conduct at issue created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII, and, if so, whether plaintiff's complaint about that conduct was causally related to her termination. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case on her retaliation claim. View "Royal v. CCC& R Tres Arboles, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Carey Salt petitioned for review of the Board's decision finding that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (3), and (5). The disputes underlying this case arose when the parties met to bargain over the terms of a new agreement that would replace the one that was expiring. The court enforced the order in part and vacated in part, concluding that substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole supported findings material to all terms of the order's mandate that Carey Salt cease and desist from presenting regressive bargaining proposals for the purpose of frustrating negotiations. View "Carey Salt Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the United States and others, alleging violations of her religious rights under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq. Plaintiff lost her job by failing to comply with the applicable regulations or to receive an appropriate waiver when she wore a kirpan (a Sikh ceremonial sword) to work. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Title VII claim where her employer's, the IRS, failure to accommodate plaintiff did not violate Title VII as a matter of law. The court reversed and remanded plaintiff's RFRA claim for further development of evidence concerning the government's compelling interest in enforcing against plaintiff the statutory ban on weapons with blades exceeding 2.5 inches. View "Tagore v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, console supervisors at a refinery, alleged that their employer, CITGO, misclassified them as exempt from the overtime payment requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-219. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment for CITGO based on plaintiffs' inability to prove damages but reduced CITGO's award of taxable costs. Both parties appealed. The court affirmed the district court's discovery sanctions dismissing seventeen plaintiffs (the January Sanction); discovery sanctions dismissing four additional plaintiffs (the March Sanction); and dismissal of the three remaining plaintiffs after preventing them from testifying about damages. The court concluded, however, that it was not entirely evident whether the district court intended plaintiffs' limited resources to be an independent basis for the cost reduction or whether, instead, it was a dependent part of a comparative-wealth analysis. Accordingly, the court reversed the order reducing costs and rendered in favor of CITGO for $53,065.72. View "Moore, et al. v. CITGO Refng. & Chem. Co., L.P." on Justia Law