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

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his suit alleging claims of equitable estoppel and breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court held that plaintiff stated a claim for relief that was cognizable under ERISA, in light of CIGNA Corp. v. Amara. Because relief was available under the surcharge doctrine under Amara, the court did not address the equitable estoppel claim and the district court was free to consider that claim on remand. Finally, the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant Entergy Mississippi where plaintiff failed to allege that Entergy Mississippi sponsored or administered the plan or made any decisions with respect to his benefits. View "Gearlds, Jr. v. Entergy Services, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former TDCJ employee, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for TDCJ on her Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112(a), and Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(D), claims. Plaintiff's allergic reaction to the use of scented candles and wall plug-ins around her work area was the basis of her ADA claim. The court held that plaintiff did not suffer from a disability within the meaning and coverage of the ADA. Further, there was no dispute that TDCJ did not receive plaintiff's FMLA certification before the deadline. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Milton v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the school district alleging that the district's decision to hire a Caucasian woman in lieu of promoting him amounted to race discrimination in violation of Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment to the district and ordered plaintiff to pay attorneys' fees. The court found no competent evidence from which a reasonable juror could infer that the district's decision to hire the woman in lieu of promoting plaintiff was motivated by impermissible racial considerations. The court held, however, that the district court's fee award constituted an abuse of discretion where the court did not agree that plaintiff's claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. View "Autry v. Fort Bend Independent Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Albemarle challenged an arbitrator's award in a labor dispute after Albemarle terminated two employees for violating its safety protocols and the employees' union, USW, filed a grievance. Albemarle first contended that the arbitrator's finding of "cause for the Employer to issue discipline," left no choice under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) but to affirm its decision to terminate the employees. Second, Albemarle maintained that the award was unenforceable as a violation of public policy. The court concluded that because the arbitrator's award neither violated the terms of the CBA nor public policy, the court must enforce it. Accordingly, the court reversed the award of summary judgment in favor of Albermarle and rendered judgment in favor of USW. View "Albemarle Corp. v. United Steel Workers, Local 103" on Justia Law

Gallagher provided insurance-related services throughout the country. Its subsidiary, GBSI, handled Gallagher's employee-benefit insurance programs. In November 2003, GBSI purchased Babcock Consulting, a business owned by Clayton L. Babcock. In this diversity suit, Gallagher and GBSI (collectively, "plaintiffs") sought money damages for breach of restrictive employment agreements under Louisiana law. The court affirmed the district court's directed verdict on the breach of competition agreement, but set aside the damages. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence on the issue of damages. The court vacated the award of attorneys' fees, leaving the ultimate award to be decided on remand. View "Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., et al v. Babcock, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, employed as a technician by Aerotek, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Miller and Aerotek on her negligent hiring claim under Mississippi law. Plaintiff alleged that she was forcibly raped by an employee of Aerotek. The court held that Mississippi law did not impose a duty on employers to conduct criminal background checks, at least within the factual circumstances of this case; non-compliance with internal corporate hiring policies was probative of, but not dispositive of, evidence of negligence under Mississippi law; and there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Miller and Aerotek should have known of the employee's violent propensity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Keen v. Robertson, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a Title VII discrimination suit against his employer, the Department of Homeland Security. At issue on appeal was whether the parties had reached an enforceable settlement. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that plaintiff was bound by the terms of his attorney's settlement offer. Further, the court never held that the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee was implicated by defective representation in Title VII proceedings and plaintiff had introduced no evidence to suggest that his attorney's representation was less than competent. View "Quesada v. Napolitano" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on his age-discrimination claims under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. 21. After defendant investigated the allegation that plaintiff falsified his work and determined that he had, defendant terminated his employment. Because plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact that his age was a motivating factor in his termination or that defendant created a hostile work environment, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a Title VII sex discrimination claim against her former employer. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer on the ground that the grievance procedure established in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provided the exclusive remedy for plaintiff's claim. Because the CBA did not clearly and unmistakably waive a union member's right to bring a Title VII claim in a federal judicial forum, the district court erred when it concluded that the CBA required plaintiff to submit her Title VII claim to the Article 51 grievance process. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for the employer and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ibarra v. United Parcel Service, Inc." on Justia Law

This case required the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether vicarious liability principles under the Jones Act allowed a seaman's wife to recover from her husband's employer for the events that led to his death. Keith Beech died after his co-worker, Michael Cosenza, accidentally shot him aboard a Hercules Drilling Company-owned vessel. The district court determined that Cosenza was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and therefore, Hercules was liable for Mr. Beech's wrongful death. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Cosenza was not acting in the course of his employment when he accidentally shot Beech, and therefore, the district court's judgment in favor of Mrs. Beech must be reversed. View "Beech v. Hercules Drilling Co., LLC" on Justia Law