This case involves plaintiff Leslie May's claims against her former employer FedEx Freight Southeast, Inc. and coworker Todd Watson, arising from alleged sexual comments, a pornographic picture shown at work, and an incident in which Watson allegedly grabbed her buttocks outside the workplace. May asserted federal claims under Title VII for sex discrimination and hostile work environment, along with various state-law claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, dismissed those claims against Watson without prejudice, and denied the defendants' summary judgment motions as moot with respect to the state claims. Only May's Title VII claims against FedEx remain pending before the court.
This case involves plaintiffs Water Craft Management, Wayne Glascock, and Nick Martrain suing Mercury Marine for state law claims of fraud and detrimental reliance after Mercury allegedly induced them to keep open their Baton Rouge boat dealership for several additional months. The court had previously dismissed the federal antitrust claim but found liability on the state claims, and after remand from the Fifth Circuit on procedural grounds, it now determines damages. The court awarded plaintiffs recovery of a $50,050 bank note plus interest and fees, plus $250,000 to Glascock and $200,000 to Martrain, while rejecting other claims as speculative or unrelated to the proven misconduct. It reasoned that damages must be directly caused by the reliance on Mercury's misrepresentations leading to the extended operation of the store, and plaintiffs failed to provide expert evidence or support for broader losses. The decision limits recovery to the specific period of competition tied to the state law violations.
This case involved L & B Transport, a trucking company, suing its former dispatcher William Ross Beech for allegedly breaching an employment agreement by planning to join a competitor, recruiting other employees, using confidential information, and violating a non-compete clause after leaving to work at Action Resources. Beech moved for summary judgment, arguing that L & B presented no evidence to support its claims and that the allegations were based on speculation. The court granted the motion, finding L & B's case against Beech to be the weakest of several related suits and applying the same analysis as in a companion case against another former employee. Regarding the non-compete provision, the court examined Louisiana law requiring such agreements to be limited to specific parishes or municipalities where the employer conducts business, but ultimately concluded summary judgment was appropriate due to lack of evidence on the claims.
In Tassin v. Ryan's Family Steakhouse, Inc., the plaintiff sued her former employer for sexual harassment and gender discrimination under state and federal law. After the court compelled arbitration pursuant to an agreement with a third-party provider, an arbitration panel denied the claims, and the plaintiff sought to have the award vacated, citing a Fifth Circuit decision invalidating similar agreements under Texas law for lack of consideration. The court affirmed the arbitration award and dismissed the claims, reasoning that arbitration awards receive great deference under the Federal Arbitration Act with only narrow grounds for vacatur, no evidence supported claims of bias or other violations, and the cited precedent was distinguishable as unpublished and based on Texas rather than Louisiana law.
The case involved plaintiff Michael Aucoin, who voluntarily left his employment with defendant RSW Holdings in February 2005 while covered by an ERISA health plan administered through HMO Louisiana. After his physician received pre-certification for a tonsillectomy in March 2005, the plan retroactively terminated coverage as of March 1 due to nonpayment of premiums by RSW following the end of the group, leading Aucoin to sue both defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and denial of benefits under ERISA (with state claims previously dismissed as preempted). The court granted summary judgment to RSW and HMO-LA while denying the plaintiff's motion. It reasoned that RSW had no obligation to provide a specific continuation form and that the plaintiff failed to properly elect COBRA-like coverage in writing, while HMO-LA's pre-certification letter expressly did not guarantee payment and the plan termination for nonpayment was valid under its terms.
In Aucoin v. RSW Holdings, L.L.C., plaintiff Michael Aucoin sued his former employer after his health insurance coverage ended following voluntary termination of employment, claiming the employer violated Louisiana state laws by failing to provide required continuation of benefits election forms, and asserting claims for detrimental reliance and unpaid amounts under employment terms. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that all state law claims were preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court granted the motion, finding that ERISA preempted the state claims because they related to an ERISA-governed health plan, that the preemption defense had not been waived despite not being explicitly pled in the answer, and that no state law savings clause applied to exempt the claims from preemption.