Workplace Accidents

Louisiana Employment Discrimination Case Fails Due to Summary Judgment

Published on: March 16, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

building_hospital_enschede_928636-scaled People may be fired for a variety of reasons. Often a dismissed employee feels the termination was unjust or racially based. Bringing a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is difficult. A plaintiff must present evidence for a prima facie case of discrimination to survive summary judgment. The following case out of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, demonstrates the difficulty of doing so.

David Williams, an African-American man, worked for Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health Systems, Inc., before being terminated in November 2012. Williams felt the firing was unfair and that he had claims to bring against the hospital. Williams’ lawsuit asserted racial discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and U.S.C. § 1981. 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Federal District Court granted summary judgment for Our Lady Health on both claims. That ruling caused Williams’s case to be dismissed, so he appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On appeal, the court must examine the district court’s granting of summary judgment and if the non-moving party has met their prima facie burden. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no disputes of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law.

What is Wrongful Termination Back Pay and Exceptional Pay in Louisiana Civil Service Matter?

Published on: March 15, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

calculator_calculation_insurance_1044172-scaled If you were wrongfully terminated from a civil service position within your local government, you might be eligible to receive some compensation for your trouble. For example, say you are placed on suspension and are on track to be terminated. However, you later appeal that decision, and your suspension and termination are lifted. As a result, you may be allowed to reclaim back pay and exceptional pay for the time you were prohibited from working. The following case out of Plaquemines parish discusses the issues of back pay and exceptional pay and how they apply within a court proceeding.

Loukisha A. Daisy applied for the position of Chief Internal Auditor at the Plaquemines Parish Government (PPG). Daisy was accepted on the condition that she complete all required courses and possess a CPA within one year of her hire date. Daisy worked for PPG for one year but did not obtain her CPA certification within that timeline. PPG moved to terminate her employment for this failure as well as two other non-critical mistakes on her part. Daisy was suspended until she had a predetermination hearing. After the suspension, Daisy was terminated.

Daisy appealed her termination to the Plaquemines Parish Civil Service Commission. The Commission reinstated her to her previous position but failed to award all of the back pay she sought in her initial appeal. Therefore, she appealed the Commission’s decision to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit court of appeals.

When Can I File a Tort Lawsuit against my Employer if I am Hurt at Work in Louisiana?

Published on: March 14, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

forklift_machine_crane_1645850-scaled Workers’ compensation is a financial support system that may be available to injured employees. It aims to ensure employees are compensated for their injuries and do not bear the entire expenses of medical bills. Workers’ compensation laws differ from state to state. Still, the general idea is that employees can get benefits regardless of who was at fault for the injury so long as the injury arose from an act during employment.

While workers’ compensation provides employees a safety net, not all claims fall under the statutory regime. Sometimes plaintiffs, like David Lindsay, believe that their injury might result from an intentional act by their employer, which could allow for a more significant damage award. Those workers will try to file their workplace accidents as intentional tort claims. The following case from the First Circuit in Louisiana discusses how employees try to recover damages outside of Workers’ Compensation benefits for their injuries on the job. It also helps answer the question, when can I file a tort claim against my employer if I am hurt at work in Louisiana?

David Lindsay was an employee at Packaging Corporation of America (PCA), where he operated forklifts as part of his duties. He suffered severe injuries when the forklift he was driving slipped and fell off a loading dock. This accident lodged his left forearm between a railcar and the safety cage on the forklift.

Angola Prisoner Denied Requested Shoulder Surgery After Review of Medical Records

Published on: March 8, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

rodeo_cowboy_bull_riding Rick Sheppard, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, injured his left shoulder two separate times while participating in the Angola Prison Rodeo. After seeing two specialists, Sheppard maintained that the medication and physical therapy regimen he had been following was ineffective. When Sheppard filed an administrative petition, he requested reparative surgery, treatment by a chiropractor, injections into the shoulder, blood testing to determine the effects of his medication, related medical records, and reimbursement of all costs.

In a two-step response, DPSC first stated that Sheppard’s request for proper medical attention had been granted since he had improved after receiving injections and physical therapy for his shoulder. In the second response, they asserted that Sheppard’s past treatment and ongoing care plan were adequate, and no further investigation into his claim would occur.

Under Louisiana law, all civil and criminal actions arising out of the incarceration of state prisoners are heard by a commissioner. This commissioner makes recommendations for the disposition of a case, which are submitted to a district judge. The district judge then accepts, modifies, or rejects the recommendation. La. R.S. l3:713(C)(l), (2), & (5)

Louisiana Engineering Company Not Liable for Trampled Worker in Geismar Plant Explosion

Published on: March 5, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

fire_explosion_danger_hot-scaled A chemical plant explosion, sudden and dangerous, causes chaos when the workers try to escape. During that exodus, a worker is trampled by his colleagues as they attempt to flee. Who then bears responsibility for the injuries caused by this trampling? Is it the other workers? Is it their managing company? Is it the owner of the chemical plant?

Just outside Geismar, Louisiana, multiple injuries resulted from a chemical explosion at the William Olefins plant. As a result, the numerous injured parties filed lawsuits against several defendants for those injuries. The defending parties included the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company collective (“CB&I”). One of the plaintiffs was Ken Haydel, whom CB&I had hired to work in the Olefins plant. Haydel alleged that he was pushed down and trampled by other CB&I workers following the explosion and that CB&I is responsible for the “intentional acts” committed by their employees within the scope of their employment.

A hearing occurred at the trial court on CB&I’s motion for summary judgment. CB&I sought to evade specific legal claims Haydel made before trial. The trial court granted CB&I’s motion for summary judgment, and Haydel appealed the trial court decision.

Lawsuit Over Car Accident Involving Louisiana State Employee Dismissed After Three Years of Inactivity by Plaintiff

Published on: February 23, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

bike_abandonment_urban_exploration-scaled Anyone involved in a lawsuit knows that litigation can take months or even years to resolve. Though courts try to expedite the process, the parties involved are also responsible for moving the case forward expediently. If the plaintiff in a lawsuit files a complaint and fails to take further action for a certain amount of time, the defendant may file a motion to dismiss on the grounds of abandonment. The case below is an example of how the abandonment of a lawsuit by the plaintiff resulted in the dismissal of the action.

Deborah Allen was an employee of the Louisiana Department of Social Services (“LADSS”). On February 2, 2007, she was riding as a passenger in a LADSS vehicle struck from behind by a car driven by Matthew Humphrey. Allen filed a lawsuit against Humprey and his automobile insurer, Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, seeking compensation for the injuries she received in the crash. Shortly after that, Louisiana’s Division of Administration, Office of Risk Management (“ORM”) filed a petition of intervention, seeking reimbursement from the defendants for workers’ compensation payments made to Allen. You can think of an intervenor as being a replacement or substitute plaintiff in an action who has a related claim against the defendants.

Because Humphrey was underinsured, Allen filed a lawsuit against LADSS. However, LADSS claimed that it had no underinsured motorist coverage and that Allen was only entitled to workers’ compensation from LADSS. LADSS was successful in securing a dismissal of Allen’s lawsuit. In early 2013, Allen and LADSS settled Allen’s workers’ compensation claims. On February 8, 2013, Humphrey and Imperial Fire filed a motion to reduce the jury bond, which is money to procure a jury. In 2014, Humphrey and Imperial Fire sent a settlement letter to Allen, but neither Allen nor the ORM responded to the letter. In 2016, Humphrey and Imperial Fire filed a motion to dismiss Allen’s lawsuit on the grounds of abandonment. After the trial court granted the defendants’ motion, ORM appealed.

Petroleum Corporation Releases Millions of Gallons of Toxins Harming Many in Calcasieu Parish

Published on: February 19, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

oil_machine_fuel_equipment-scaled What happens when the same wrongdoer injures several people? Typically, in cases like this, the court may consolidate the actions to promote the efficient use of judicial resources. However, these cases may be complex and lengthy and require expert testimony, as exemplified by the following lawsuit out of Lake Charles, Louisiana.

CITGO Petroleum Corporation’s (“CITGO”) Calcasieu Parish Refinery released millions of gallons of slop oil and wastewater into the Calcasieu River, subsequently contaminating over 100 miles of coastline and taking six months to clean. Slop oil is extremely flammable, poisonous, and listed on the Toxic Substances Control Act inventory. On the same day as the spill, CITGO’s steam lines became submerged and released hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide from several stacks in illegal concentrations for approximately twelve hours. The wind allowed those toxic emissions to reach the surrounding community.

The plaintiffs, in this case, assert various injuries as a result of their exposure to the toxic chemicals and emissions released by CITGO. The Louisiana Fourteenth Judicial District Court found in favor of thirty-four plaintiffs. CITGO then appealed the judgment awarding damages to twenty-two plaintiffs based on causation and duration of damages.

Canton Woman’s Lawsuit Dismissed For Failure to Disclose Claim In Bankruptcy Proceeding

Published on: February 15, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

lose_decay_old_factory_0-scaled It is always difficult when you lose a job. But it can be even more difficult if you feel you were unfairly fired. If you find yourself in this situation, consider what legal options are available. This is the situation Christine Simpson found herself in after being fired from her job as a production technician in Canton, Mississippi.

Before she was terminated, Simpson allegedly injured her ankle on the job and pursued a claim under Mississippi’s workers’ compensation laws. Her employee, Kelly Services Inc., claimed she was fired for not calling in and for missing work after her doctor released her to return to work. Simpson, however, claimed that her absences were all excused due to her injury. She claimed that the real reason Kelly fired her was disability discrimination.

Approximately two weeks after being terminated, Simpson filed a Petition for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. As part of the bankruptcy proceeding, Simpson was required to submit a Statement of Financial Affairs. One of the questions on the form asked her to list all lawsuits to which she was a party within one year immediately before filing for bankruptcy. Simpson checked the box labeled “none” next to that question.

Louisiana’s Act 312 and its Impact on the Environment and Oil Exploration

Published on: October 11, 2013 | By Berniard Law Firm

La. R.S. 30:29 (“Act 312”) was in enacted in 2006 and became effective in June of that year. Act 312 provides a procedure for the remediation of oil field sites as well as oil exploration and production sites. Generally, remediation is “the action of remedying something, in particular of reversing or stopping environmental change.” Before the Louisiana legislature enacted Act 312, most remediation requirements were through private party contracts; therefore, Act 312 did not change the normal trial procedures established by the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently discussed Act 312 at length, explaining what it did change, in a case involving the Vermilion Parish School Board. The Court explained that Act 312 was enacted because of serious concerns with the state of the land and ground water after an area was used for oil exploration and production. Parties would use the land and ground water under a mineral lease for several years, and leave the property in terrible shape by the time that they were done. Mineral leases allow the parties to contract for only the minerals or the potential oil that is located on that property. The party with the mineral lease, then, does not rent the entire property, but just the ability to find minerals or oil within or upon that property.

Before Act 312, parties could still sue if one party left the land in terrible shape. Occasionally, however, it does not make sense economically to force a party to fix the land they damaged. Instead, the renting party would have to give the “landlord” the difference between the value of the land when they received it and the value of the land when it was returned after the lease, under a tort law theory. However, the person who owned the land, the “landlord,” was not required to use the funds to fix damage done to the land. As a result, property that had serious environmental problems often went without remediation because the landlord was not required to fix it. This creates health and safety concerns for the general public.

Environmental Damage Appeal Focuses on Mineral Lease, Oil

Published on: October 6, 2013 | By Berniard Law Firm

In January, the Louisiana Supreme Court considered an appeal from the Vermilion Parish School Board. The appeal centered on environmental damage to land that was subject to a mineral lease. The mineral lease allowed those leasing the land to look for and remove any mineral, including oil, that they found on the land. However, once they did this, they left the land in a state that was environmentally hazardous.

Louisiana has special procedures for dealing with restoring land so that we do not harm the environment, specifically when removing oil. The remediation of the land, this restoring process, was one of the major issues in the Vermilion Parish case. The defendants included Union Oil Company of California, Union Exploration Partners, Carrollton Resources, LLC, Chevron USA, Inc., and Chevron Midcontinent, L.P.

The Court faced two major issues in this case. The first was whether the parties could receive damages in excess of the amount it would take to restore the property, thereby correcting the environmental damage. The Court determined that the language of the legislation (La. R.S. 30:29) was clear and that the parties could receive a larger amount.

Under Louisiana law, when a case arises where a party is required to correct an environmental wrong, the funds are deposited into the court’s registry. The court will then disperse the funds to repair the land. This is a relatively new development because this act was put into effect in 2006. The legislature was concerned that parties who received funds to help correct the damage done to their land would not use it for that purpose if they were not so required. Leaving property that is damaged could create serious issues for the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding population.

The legislation focuses on the role of the fact finder in determining whether there was environmental damage, and how much that environmental damage will cost to fix. As such, the court determined that the case should continue so that the fact finder could make those determinations.

The second issue was whether Chevron should be dismissed from the case. According to the facts, Union Oil had the mineral lease first, but Chevron subsequently acquired Union Oil and all of their assets, including the lease. As such, Chevron became responsible for any environmental damage that Union Oil may have caused. Chevron admitted responsibility initially, but then denied that they should be legally responsible later.

Chevron explained that while Chevron Corp. owns both Chevron USA and Union Oil Company of California, the two sections do not overlap. That is, Union Oil had $18 billion in assets, and should they be found liable for environmental damage, the amount that they will pay will come from their assets and not Chevron’s. Chevron explained that those assets were never transferred out of Union Oil, so Union Oil remained somewhat independent even after Chevron acquired them.

Therefore, Chevron argued that Chevron USA should be removed from the case so that those assets are not adversely affected. Nonetheless, Frank Soler, the senior liaison in the subsidiary governance unit of the corporate governance department for Chevron Corp. admitted that Union Oil does not have any employees and there may be service agreements between the two sections for day-to-day activities.

The Plaintiffs in the case were only allowed to discover a very limited amount of information from Chevron regarding this case. The court restricted the information until they determined whether or not Chevron should remain in the case a defendant. As such, many facts remained unknown regarding the relationship between Chevron and Union Oil. Therefore, the court determined that Plaintiffs should be allowed to gather more information and the case should continue.

Both of these issues failed the summary judgment test. The test is whether there is an absence of material facts in the case. If there is such an absence, then the court will only determine the questions of law and one side will receive a summary judgment. In this case, however, the court determined that there may be facts in dispute because they did not have enough information; therefore, the case continued.