Workers in the State of Louisiana are protected by laws that prohibit employment-based discrimination. But often, the litigation process is complicated; employees who believe they are victims of discrimination and harassment face a challenging burden of proof in order to recover from their employer.  

Mr. Hui Chen worked as an equipment mechanic for Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans. Chen routinely exceeded expectations during his annual performance reviews, but his employer suggested that he develop his technical skills, communication ability, and confidence in order to better resolve certain recurring issues on his own and with a team. Chen declined his employer’s recommendations for training and eventually refused to sign his performance evaluations.

When Chen injured his ankle at work, he took three months off for recovery. During Chen’s leave, a back-up mechanic assumed his responsibilities and discovered numerous quality control issues that Chen should have repaired as part of his routine work. When Chen returned from leave, he disputed the needed repairs; nevertheless, he received a corrective action and was ultimately placed on probation for failing to properly assess and diagnose the issues. Because Chen claimed his ankle pain interfered with his duties to perform daily inspections, he performed only six out of 25 scheduled inspections and was ultimately terminated for insubordination. 

There are multiple federal laws that affect the employer-employee relationship. Two such laws are the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) as well as the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Lawsuits involving the laws often involve employees suffering from difficult circumstances. Such circumstances can become even more difficult if an employer does not comply with their duties under these laws. By ensuring compliance with these and other employment laws, employers can not only help their employees through difficult circumstances, but also avoid liability themselves. 

Liza C. Ariza (“Ariza”) began working as a guard and drove a protected truck for Loomis in February 2008. Ariza claims that at the time that she interviewed for the job, she informed the branch manager that she had seizures. However, the branch manager denied that Ariza had ever told her that she had seizures or another disability. Ariza did not mark that she had seizures or another disability on Loomi’s employment forms. She also did ask for any ADA accommodation in the relevant portion of the form. 

In September 2008, Ariza claimed that she underwent a fainting spell or seizure while she was driving a protected truck. Her coworker, who was driving in the truck with Ariza when the alleged incident occurred, testified that he did not see anything indicating a seizure. The records from the emergency room stated that Ariza had suffered a fainting spell. Following this incident, Ariza kept driving the protected truck and did not ask for any accommodations. In 2011, Ariza was promoted to a supervisor position. Ariza claimed that she was moved to this position to accommodate her disability, but Loomis countered that she had requested the new position because of demands from her schoolwork. In June 2012, Ariza allegedly had another seizure at work. At Loomis’s request, Ariza took FMLA leave.