Articles Posted in Business Dispute

Workplaces have rules employees must follow. Termination for violation of these rules must be in good faith. What happens when an employee argues he was fired arbitrarily? The following case helps answer this question. 

Nolvey Stelly was terminated from the Lafayette Police Department  (LPD) for failing to follow orders. An investigation was ordered, and Stelly was suspended for fifteen days. He appealed the suspension, which was affirmed. Stelly then appealed to the trial court, which also upheld his suspension. Before his fifteen-day suspension, Stelly was called to a pre-determination hearing, which he secretly recorded and invited news outlets to attend. The recording and the invitation violated the LPD’s rules on professionalism. A second investigation was then conducted. During the investigation, Stelly was placed on paid administrative leave with strict orders not to engage in off-duty employment. Stelly worked a second job during this time, which prompted a third investigation of his misconduct. Stelly was then terminated. 

Stelly appealed his termination to the Lafayette Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board (Board), which upheld the previous decisions. The trial court also affirmed the decision, which Stelly appealed. Stelly argued the ruling was not in good faith, the penalty was unreasonable, his actions did not violate the LPD’s operating procedures, his actions did not affect his working duties, and his discipline was not on par with his alleged offenses. 

We can all relate to the embarrassment of hitting “reply all” on an email only intended for a smaller audience. Although usually “replying all” just results in embarrassment that eventually subsides, sometimes it can lead to more severe actions, such as losing your job. 

Frith Malin worked as a deputy director at the Orleans Parrish Communications District (“OPCD”), which was responsible for providing 911 services. After she had worked there for eight years, the executive director of the OPCD emailed all employees to inform them one of OPCD’s board members had been named CEO of another organization so that he would be stepping down from OPCD’s board. Malin accidentally hit “reply all,” instead of emailing just OPCD’s executive director criticisms about the departing board member.  

Three days later, Malin was suspended. OPCD conducted an internal investigation, which led to Malin’s eventual termination. A few months before sending the email, Malin had reported the Human Resources manager who investigated commentary related to sexually explicit images on six different occasions. There was no evidence Hobson was aware Malin had reported her, and Hobson was never disciplined. Following her termination, Malin filed a lawsuit against OPCD under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of her First Amendment rights. She also brought claims under Title VII and La. R.S. 23:967, Louisiana’s whistleblower statute. She alleged OPCD had retaliated against her for reporting the Human Resources manager. OPCD filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted. Malin appealed, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing her claims against OPCD. 

When terminating employment in Louisiana, it is crucial to understand the laws governing the timely payment of owed wages. However, a question arises when an employee fails to explicitly state “discharged” or “resigned” in their petition. Kevion Dillon found herself in such a situation after experiencing harassment and discrimination that led her to resign from her position. Despite not using specific terminology, she sought to receive her final wages within the 15 days mandated by Louisiana law. This case sheds light on the importance of legal guidance to navigate the complexities of claiming unpaid wages and exercising one’s rights when facing employment challenges.

Kevin Dillon worked at Babies R US, which Toys R Us owned. After she resigned due to the alleged harassment and discrimination she suffered from, Dillon filed a lawsuit under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, La. R.S. 23:301. She also brought other claims against Toys R Us, including alleging Toys R Us had violated La. R.S. 23:631 and 632, the Louisiana Wage Payment Act, by not timely paying her final wages within the 15 days required under the statute. 

Dillon then filed a Rule to Show Cause related to her Louisiana Wage Payment Act claims. In response, Toys R US filed an exception of no cause of action, which the trial court granted and dismissed Dillon’s wage claims. The trial court explained there was no legal remedy available to Dillon because she did not use the words “discharged” or “resigned” in her petition. Dillon then appealed, arguing her petition properly asserted a cause of action under the Louisiana Wage Payment Act. 

The diverse range of viewpoints expressed at city council meetings often evokes mixed reactions from attendees. While some voices may test our patience, it is crucial to recognize that the First Amendment safeguards individuals’ freedom of speech during such gatherings. A case involving Tom Heaney’s experience at a Jefferson Parish city council meeting in Gretna, Louisiana, sheds light on the constitutional rights protected in these limited public forums. The subsequent legal proceedings provide valuable insights into the requirements for successfully pursuing a First Amendment claim related to alleged silencing in such settings.

Tom Heaney registered to speak at a Jefferson Parish city council meeting in Gretna, Louisiana. The city council rules allowed registered individuals to speak for five minutes. After Heaney had spoken for approximately three minutes, the presiding official, Christopher Roberts, interrupted him and asked him if he would yield to the Jefferson Parish attorney. Heaney thought he would get the remaining two minutes back after the attorney spoke because that happened with the prior speaker who yielded. However, after a heated back-and-forth between Heaney and Roberts, Roberts asked for Heaney to be removed. 

A police officer, Ronald Black, responded to the request to remove Heaney. Heaney then filed a lawsuit, claiming that Roberts and Black had violated his constitutional rights, including the First Amendment, and that Black had also committed various torts. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied Roberts’ summary judgment motions concerning the First Amendment claim but granted Black’s motion on the First Amendment claim. Comparing these two outcomes provides insight into the requirements to succeed on a First Amendment claim involving purported silencing in a limited public forum.

Have you ever wondered what happens when things go wrong on a construction project? A recent case out of Louisiana sheds light on the complicated legal battles that can ensue when construction defects are discovered. The case highlights the importance of understanding your legal rights and options when dealing with construction disputes and the need for skilled legal representation to navigate the complex world of construction law.

The owner of multiple oyster leases, Wade White, filed a lawsuit against Cox Operating, LLC, seeking damages for the harm caused to his oyster beds during Cox’s drilling of oil wells. In 2000, Cox entered into an agreement with White when it began drilling wells near some of his oyster leases. Cox negotiated another drilling release with White in 2012 when it sought to drill more wells near his leases. However, White discovered that Cox had driven pilings into his oyster leases and was using routes that differed from the agreed-upon routes. As a result, Cox removed the pilings and continued to follow the previous routes. Cox later claimed the executed drilling releases covered any damages caused by the pilings and extra water traffic.

White then filed a lawsuit against Cox due to the pilings, and Cox filed an exception of res judicata, arguing the written releases barred the plaintiff’s suit. If someone wants to use the res judicata defense in a lawsuit, they need to prove it is true using evidence that shows it’s more likely than not true. Then, at the trial, they can bring in more evidence to support their argument as long as the reasons for using that evidence were already brought up before the trial.