Frank Joseph Polozola

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

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.

healthcarelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmenthealthcarefederal power

In this case, former employees of the Livingston Parish Communications District sued their employer and two individuals, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged due process violations arising from their terminations without notice or hearing, federal and state age discrimination statutes, and Louisiana wage payment laws. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), dismissing the Section 1983 claims, all age discrimination claims, and the state wage claims against the individual defendants. The core reasoning was that the communications district is not an instrumentality of the state or part of the Louisiana State Civil Service System under the state constitution and relevant statutes as interpreted in Slowinski v. England Economic and Industrial Development District, so the plaintiffs lacked a protected property interest in continued employment; the age claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and state law did not support individual liability on the wage claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, residents near a Georgia Gulf chemical plant sued after a 2001 fire at the facility released phenolic tar and vapors, alleging physical injuries from exposure as well as emotional distress from the incident and shelter-in-place orders. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. It reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on compensable physical injuries under Louisiana tort law, and their emotional distress claims did not satisfy the requirements of severity, direct involvement, or qualifying bystander status under precedents like Lejeune and Louisiana Civil Code art. 2315.6. The ruling applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards after finding no adequate showing on essential elements of the claims.

torts & liabilityenvironment

The case involved a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief to prevent a Louisiana school board from implementing sex-segregated classes at a junior high school, alleging violations of Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Louisiana Constitution. After the suit was filed and the court held an in-chambers conference, the school board voluntarily abandoned the plan before any hearing or ruling occurred, rendering the case moot; the parties jointly requested dismissal without prejudice, with no injunction, consent decree, or other court order entered. The plaintiff then moved for attorney's fees and costs as a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff did not qualify as a prevailing party because there was no judicially sanctioned material alteration in the legal relationship between the parties, as required by Supreme Court precedent such as Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources; the board's voluntary change was insufficient to confer that status.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves blind disabled workers at a sheltered workshop who sued Louisiana labor officials, alleging that a state statute exempting such workshops from unemployment compensation requirements discriminates against them based on disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing the exemption mirrors a federal provision in the Federal Unemployment Tax Act that permits but does not require states to exclude services performed in sheltered workshops. The court reviewed the purpose of the exemption, which supports programs providing remunerative work for disabled individuals, and noted that the statute applies based on the type of employment rather than individual assessments of workers. The court determined that the plaintiffs' claims did not establish a violation of the ADA or RA, as the exemption furthers congressional goals without conflicting with anti-discrimination requirements.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a motion by defendants, the Office of the Legislative Auditor and two supervisors, for attorney's fees and costs after prevailing on summary judgment in a suit brought by former employee Ernest Levy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims. The district court had previously stayed the case pending the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, then granted summary judgment dismissing the federal claims based on that ruling and remanded the state claims. The court denied the fee motion, holding that under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Supreme Court precedent such as Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC and Hughes v. Rowe, prevailing defendants are entitled to fees only if the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, a standard not met here because the suit raised reasonable issues that required clarification from intervening Supreme Court authority and was not shown to be vexatious or baseless at the outset.

civil rightsprocedure

In Levy v. Office of the Legislative Auditor, the plaintiff alleged that his employer demoted him in retaliation for a speech criticizing office policies delivered at a Toastmasters event, claiming a violation of his First Amendment rights. The court considered whether the speech was protected under Garcetti v. Ceballos, which holds that public employees speaking pursuant to their official duties are not acting as citizens for First Amendment purposes. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that the plaintiff's speech was made as part of his employment duties at the Office of the Legislative Auditor. Accordingly, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's claims with prejudice.

free speechlabor & employmentcivil rights

In Wilkinson v. Potter, a U.S. Postal Service employee alleged that a male mechanic's conduct, including touching her arm, pointing a metal rod at her, staring, and making unnecessary appearances in her work area, created a hostile work environment based on sex and race in violation of Title VII. The district court granted the defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment after earlier dismissing some claims. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence showing the alleged conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms of employment under an objective standard, that no coworkers witnessed or corroborated the incidents despite opportunities to do so, and that the plaintiff did not contest the defendant's statement of undisputed facts.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved plaintiffs who purchased variable annuities from Western Reserve Life Assurance Company in 1999 and 2000 and later sued, alleging the company breached duties of good faith and fair dealing through misrepresentations about tax deferral benefits, surrender penalties, payout options, and commissions, along with related fraud claims. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the suit with prejudice. It held that the claims were delictual in nature and thus subject to Louisiana's one-year prescriptive period under Civil Code Article 3492, which began to run at the time of purchase. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had access to the relevant information in prospectuses and contracts, so the doctrine of contra non valentem did not apply to toll prescription, and the fraud allegations were also time-barred and inadequately pleaded under Rule 9(b).

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Boykin v. City of Baton Rouge, a former Director of Human Resources sued the city for First Amendment retaliation after drafting a workforce diversification report, which he claimed led to adverse employment actions. The court granted defendants' renewed motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the First Amendment claim. Relying on Garcetti v. Ceballos, the court held that when a public employee makes statements pursuant to official duties, the employee is not speaking as a citizen and the speech receives no First Amendment protection from employer discipline; here the report fell within the plaintiff's human resources responsibilities. Title VII claims for racial harassment and retaliation were allowed to proceed to trial.

free speechlabor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved DirecTV suing defendant Roger Price for purchasing and using an unauthorized 'bootloader' device to intercept and access its encrypted satellite television programming without payment, in violation of federal statutes including 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and 47 U.S.C. § 605. The court granted DirecTV's motion for summary judgment. Because Price failed to respond to requests for admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, the matters were deemed admitted as true, establishing the facts of the violations and his knowledge and use of the device. Price also failed to oppose the motion as required by local rules and Rule 56, and the admitted facts plus supporting evidence met the standard for summary judgment on liability and damages.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

In Simoneaux v. Brown, plaintiff Dayna Simoneaux sued defendants including City Financial under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, alleging they willfully or negligently obtained her consumer credit report without a permissible purpose while attempting to collect a criminal restitution debt from her husband Vernon for embezzlement from his employer. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after oral argument. The core reasoning was that Louisiana community property law creates a rebuttable presumption that obligations incurred during the marriage are community debts available for seizure, the plaintiff failed to show the debt was a separate obligation under La. C.C. art. 2363 as an intentional wrong not benefiting the community, and thus the credit inquiry was permissible under the FCRA.

business & regulatorycriminal lawfamily law

The case involved plaintiff Robert Berg suing his former employer, Sage Environmental Consulting, for unpaid compensation including vacation pay and indemnification for prior legal fees after he resigned in 2004. Sage moved to transfer venue from the Middle District of Louisiana to the Northern District of Texas, citing a forum selection clause in its Articles of Incorporation requiring indemnification claims to be brought in Dallas County, Texas, where its principal office is located. Berg opposed the transfer, arguing he was unaware of the clause, that litigating in Texas would cause him financial hardship, that Louisiana was more convenient for witnesses and records, and that Louisiana public policy disfavored forum selection clauses in employment contracts. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), treated the forum selection clause as a significant factor under federal law, and granted the motion to transfer after determining that venue was proper in both districts but the clause and other factors favored Texas.

procedurelabor & employment

This case involved plaintiff James McDowell’s suit in Louisiana state court under the Louisiana Wage Penalty Statute seeking unpaid wages, penalties, and attorney fees, which defendant PerkinElmer removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff moved to remand, conceding diversity jurisdiction but arguing for discretionary remand or abstention due to the summary proceedings available under state law that are unavailable in federal court. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that abstention does not apply because there is no parallel state proceeding, that remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) is unavailable absent a federal question or separate claims, and that Fifth Circuit precedent in Weems v. McCloud precludes discretionary remand in this context.

procedurelabor & employment

This case involves employees of New Century Financial Corp. and related companies who filed suits alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime compensation. The plaintiffs sought to proceed as a collective action on behalf of loan officers across multiple branches, claiming a common policy of not recording overtime hours. The court granted the defendants' motion to reject conditional certification of the collective action. The decision was based on the plaintiffs' failure to file a formal motion for certification and insufficient evidence that the employees were similarly situated, given the decentralized nature of the alleged practices across 80 branches in 30 states.

labor & employmentprocedure