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

Plaintiff Rebecca Gonzalez (Relator) brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Defendants, Fresenius Medical Care N.A., Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., Bio-Medical Applications of Texas, Inc. (collectively, Fresenius), and Dr. Alfonzo Chavez. Relator also brought retaliation claims against Fresenius and her former supervisor Larry Ramirez. The district court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants on the remaining claims. The district court then awarded Fresenius $15,360 in attorney's fees from Relator's counsel. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment in all instances, holding (1) the district court correctly granted Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on Relator's FCA claims, and the court's FCA jury instructions were not in error; (2) the district court did not err in granting Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on Relator's retaliation claims; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sanctions under 28 U.S.C. 1927. View "Gonzalez v. Fresenius Med. Care N.A." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals withdrew its previous opinion in this case filed on April 20, 2012. Because the case involved important and determinative questions of Texas law as to which there was no controlling Texas Supreme Court precedent, the Court substituted its previous opinion with the following questions to the Supreme Court of Texas: (1) whether, under Texas law, at-will employees may bring fraud claims against their employers for loss of their employment; and (2) if question number one is answered in the negative, whether employees covered under a sixty-day cancellation-upon-notice collective bargaining agreement that limits the employer's ability to discharge its employees only for just cause may bring Texas fraud claims against their employer based on allegations that the employer fraudulently induced them to terminate their employment. View "Sawyer v. E I DuPont de Nemours & Co." on Justia Law

Claimant was employed by New Orleans Depot Services, Inc. (NODSI) as a mechanic from 1996 until 2002. Prior to his employment with NODSI, Claimant was employed by New Orleans Marine Contractors (NOMC) for five months. During his employment with both NODSI and NOMC, Claimant was exposed to loud noises on a continuous basis and did not use hearing protection. Claimant sought permanent partial disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act for a hearing impairment. The ALJ determined that NODSI was liable for Claimants benefits as his last maritime employer. The Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirmed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the factual findings of the ALJ. View "New Orleans Depot Servs., Inc. v. Dir., Office of Worker's Comp. Programs" on Justia Law

Appellants were employed as grips with Spring Break Louisiana (Employer) for the filming of Spring Break '83 (the movie). Throughout the filming period, Appellants were members of a union (Union), which entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Employer. Later, Appellants filed a grievance against Employer alleging they had not been paid wages for work they performed. Union and Employer entered into a settlement agreement pertaining to disputed hours allegedly worked by Appellants. Before the settlement agreement was signed by Union representatives, Appellants filed a lawsuit against Employer and several individuals (Appellees), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court granted summary judgment for Appellees. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the individual Appellees were not employers under the FLSA; and (2) Appellants released any FLSA claims against Employer by accepting settlement payments for those claims. View "Martin v. Spring Break '83 Prods., LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, the former employer of a retired longshoreman, challenged a Benefits Review Board (BRB) decision that overruled an ALJ twice and held petitioner liable for the longshoreman's hearing loss. The court held that the BRB erred in rejecting expert evidence in part and in then rejecting the ALJ's first conclusion based on his evaluation of the evidence. Further, the court need not reach the aggravation rule issue raised by petitioner. Because the BRB initially applied the wrong legal test and standard of review to the ALJ's decision, the court reversed. View "Ceres Gulf, Inc. v. DOWCP, et al" on Justia Law

The Board found that EPE, an electric utility, engaged in unfair labor practices prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151-169, in response to the Union's successful organizational efforts to add employee groups in the bargaining unit. EPE contended that the record did not support the Board's findings. The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings and affirmed the judgment. View "El Paso Electric Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff sought workers' compensation from Wal-Mart's carrier after she suffered a lower-back injury on July 28, 1997. At issue was whether a claim for a bad faith denial of workers' compensation benefits was untimely brought by plaintiff. The court held that plaintiff's original claim was barred by Mississippi's three-year statute of limitations. Her new allegations as to a continuing violation and other instances of bad faith did not state a claim. Thus, the district court properly dismissed the entirety of her second amended complaint. View "Patrick v. Wal-Mart, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

A Texas jury found that a corporate staffing company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., when it refused to allow a deaf woman to apply for a warehouse job, awarding her back pay, compensatory, and punitive damages. On appeal the company raised several issues. The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute; the district court's finding - that the company's failure to account for its delay was dispositive, outweighing the other three factors for assessing good cause - was well supported and squarely within its sound discretion; the court rejected the company's claim that because the EEOC failed to provide computations for compensatory and punitive damages, the EEOC should have been precluded from seeking any damages whatsoever; the district court's analysis of punitive damages was considered, fair, and in no way an abuse of discretion; and the court rejected the company's challenges to the district court's imposition of injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "EEOC v. Service Temps Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, 64 former employees of DuPont who worked at the company's manufacturing facility in La Porte, Texas, filed suit against DuPont alleging that they were fraudulently induced to terminate their employment with DuPont and accept employment with a wholly owned subsidiary. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims and entered a take-nothing final judgment in favor of DuPont. The court deferred to the Texas appellate courts and concluded that the 60 day termination clause at issue rendered the covered employees' employment with DuPont at-will for the purpose of Texas law. Accordingly, they could not bring fraud claims against DuPont for loss of their employment and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sawyer, et al. v. E I DuPont de Nemours & Co" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a law enforcement park ranger, was transferred to a staff ranger position based on the conclusion of a medical review board constituted by the National Park Service that his uncontrolled diabetes could prevent him from safely performing his duties. Plaintiff filed suit under the Rehabilitation Act, claiming that his transfer amounted to discrimination on the basis of his alleged disability. The district court granted summary judgment for the Department and plaintiff appealed. The court held that the record supported the district court's conclusion that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the business necessity defense and its grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department was proper. View "Atkins v. Salazar" on Justia Law