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

Plaintiff asserted federal claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and under 42 U.S.C. 1981, as well as a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, asserting that his employer subjected him to racial discrimination. At the time plaintiff filed both his EEOC charge and his complaint initiating the instant case, plaintiff was a debtor in a Chapter 13 proceeding, having filed a petition for bankruptcy. The employer subsequently moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff should be judicially estopped from pursuing his claims against the employer because he failed to disclose those claims to the bankruptcy court. The district court granted the motion, dismissing plaintiff's case, and plaintiff appealed. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying judicial estoppel to plaintiff's claims after finding that plaintiff failed to create a fact issue regarding his purported inadvertence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

In a consolidated appeal, plaintiffs contended that the district court erred in denying their motions to remand and in dismissing their workplace safety claims as time-barred. Plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that Dresser failed to properly monitor and mitigate exposure to loud noise at Dresser's industrial facility and that these failures led to long-term hearing loss. The court concluded that Dresser owed plaintiffs duties under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and simultaneously owed non-negotiable, independent duties under Louisiana tort law. These duties formed the bases for two distinct types of claims - contract and tort - either of which plaintiffs could have brought before the district court. Plaintiffs chose to sue in tort, without reference to the CBA, and their claims could be adjudicated by sole resort to Louisiana tort law. Applying the Supreme Court's construction of section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185(a), the district court was without jurisdiction and therefore erred in denying the motions to remand and in granting the motions to dismiss. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and remanded. View "McKnight v. Dresser, Inc.; Lachney v. Dresser, Inc.; Anderson, et al. v. Dresser, Inc." on Justia Law

In this employment discrimination case, the EEOC and Thomas D. Turner (collectively, plaintiffs), appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing all plaintiffs' claims that the decisions to discipline Turner and three other African American employees for putative work-rule violations were based on race in violation of federal and state law. The court affirmed with respect to the claims based on the decisions to discipline Jesse Frank and Clarence Cargo because the court concluded that the EEOC had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination with regard to those decisions. However, the court reversed with respect to the claims based on the decisions to discipline Turner and Lester Thomas because the court concluded that plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of discrimination; and that defendant failed to produce admissible evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for those decisions. Thus, a jury question existed as to whether the decisions to discipline Turner and Thomas were impermissibly based on race. View "Turner v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an employee of the Railroad for nearly 40 years, filed suit under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. 51 et seq., claiming that the injuries to his knees, diagnosed after his retirement, were partly the result of the Railroad's negligence. A jury found such a connection and awarded damages. The court held that the evidence was insufficient on causation where no evidence was introduced to connect the worker's specific condition to the work that he performed. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment.

Plaintiff claimed and a jury found that he was constructively discharged from his UTSW faculty position because of racially motivated harassment by a superior. The jury also found that UTSW retaliated against plaintiff by preventing him from obtaining a position at Parkland Hospital after he resigned from UTSW. The court held that, although there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the retaliation claim, there was insufficient evidence of constructive discharge. Therefore, the court vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for reconsideration of plaintiff's monetary recovery and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff sued his employer and one of its owners, defendant, for violating the minimum wage standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 206(a). Plaintiff argued that as a member of this Texas limited liability corporation, defendant was an "employer" under the FLSA and was therefore personally liable for the employer's violations. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant. Applying the economic reality test to defendant, the court reaffirmed the district court's conclusion that no reasonable jury could have found him to be an employer where defendant was simply not sufficiently involved in the operation of the club. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

This appeal arose from the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the Railway Labor Act's (RLA), 45 U.S.C. 151, 181, exclusive and mandatory dispute resolution process that applied to plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs argue that the RLA did not apply to them because they were no longer "employees" as contemplated by the RLA. Alternatively, plaintiffs argued that even if the RLA applied to them as former employees, they complied with the terms of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which allowed them to bring an action in federal district court pursuant to section 501(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The court held that plaintiffs were employees under the RLA pursuant to Supreme Court precedent. In the alternative, plaintiffs were explicitly looking for a "contracted-for" judicial remedy following an adverse RLA-established Retirement Board ruling without showing any of the narrow exceptions to RLA exclusivity. Therefore, the court declined to depart from established precedent preventing parties from creating federal court jurisdiction where there was none. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

In 2005, during plaintiff's employment, defendant issued an employee handbook, including a provision that all employment-related disputes, whether initiated by an employee or by defendant, would be "resolved only by an arbitrator through final and binding arbitration," that disputes under the Fair Labor Standards Act were among those subject to the arbitration policy, that disputes cannot be brought as class actions or in representative capacities, and that the Federal Arbitration Act was its governing authority. Plaintiff signed a receipt that reiterated the arbitration policy. After his employment ended, plaintiff filed a class action, alleging violation of the FLSA by failing to adequately compensate him and other similarly-situated employees for overtime work. The district court denied a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that the provision was illusory because the employer retained the right to terminate or modify the provision at any time. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, noting that under the provision the company could make amendments almost instantaneously.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's entry of judgment as a matter of law as to his claims of sexual harassment, retaliation, loss of overtime, and for punitive damages. The court concluded that the district court correctly found that plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to support his claims for retaliation, loss of overtime and punitive damages, but that the evidence presented did support the jury's conclusion that plaintiff was sexually harassed and that his employer failed to promptly respond to the harassment. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment as a matter of law and remanded to the district court with directions to enter judgment on those claims.

This interlocutory appeal arose out of the deaths of two civilian drivers in a United States military supply-truck convoy in Iraq when insurgents attacked in April 2004. State tort claims were brought by or on behalf of spouses and family members of the decedents against KBR. KBR contended that the district court erred in denying its motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment in which it argued that the Defense Base Act (DBA), 42 U.S.C. 1651-54, provided plaintiffs exclusive remedy and preempted all state tort claims that have been asserted. The court concluded that the DBR preempted plaintiffs' state law claims and therefore did not consider whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the alternative grounds on which KBR sought dismissal.