Articles Posted in Business Dispute

We all know that words matter. However, sometimes people use offensive or disrespectful words or slurs in the workplace. Workplaces often have policies in place that lay out prohibited behaviors and establish disciplinary actions for infractions, including use of disrespectful language. Such discipline can range from a write-up to termination and depends on the specific offense. Is use of a racial epithet grounds for termination?

Dustin Bonial worked as a lineman for the City of Alexandria. Bonial was accused of using a racial epithet in reference to a coworker while in the breakroom, which violated the city’s workplace conduct policy. The city terminated Bonial. Bonial filed an appeal with the Alexandria Civil Service Commission. 

At the hearing, Bonial agreed he had called his coworker by the racial epithet.  He claimed people had used the epithet in reference to the coworker multiple times before, and the coworker had been okay with it. Bonial’s supervisor testified the use of racial epithets adversely affected morale and efficient operations. 

In the bustling corridors of the U.S. Postal Service in Istrouma, Louisiana, a tale of workplace strife and legal intricacies unfolded. Catherine J. Valdry, a dedicated mail carrier, found herself entangled in a web of allegations against her supervisor, Clifton Maryland, a Customer Service Manager. What began as a refusal to join Maryland on a fishing trip soon spiraled into an alleged hostile work environment, as Valdry claimed she faced emotional distress and aggressive conduct. When she summoned the courage to report Maryland’s behavior, the situation took a turn for the worse, with ominous warnings and intensified micromanagement. Valdry’s pursuit of justice led her to the courtroom, where she aimed to prove her case, facing the challenging task of establishing a retaliatory hostile work environment. This article delves into the legal intricacies of her journey, from the district court’s initial ruling to the appellate court’s ultimate decision, which ultimately declared the case moot.

Valdry filed a retaliatory hostile work environment lawsuit. When bringing forth a prima facie case of retaliatory hostile work environment, the district court stated the harassment must be severe and affect the complainant’s employment. In response to the lawsuit, Maryland filed a motion of summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is “no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The facts are considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp.

The district court granted the summary-judgment motion, although the Fifth Circuit was undecided on whether the retaliatory hostile work environment claim was applicable under Title VII. The district court also presumed the motion would consider all events occurring after Valdry’s internal complaint about Maryland on September 13, 2013.

Horse races represent a lot of things: money, power, competition. The outcomes of races matter a lot to those involved, and debates about those races can be pretty contentious, even getting to court. When a back-and-forth about the rightful winner of a horse race makes it to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, how does the court deal with this unique and specific area of law?

The Second Circuit had to decide which horse, “Coalport” or “Benwill”, won the Unbridled Stakes horse race at Louisiana Downs. Coalport’s owners, the Ramseys, brought a suit against the Louisiana State Racing Commission (the “Commission”) after the Louisiana Downs Stewards questioned and reversed Coalport’s win at Unbridled Stakes. Ultimately, the Board of Stewards found that Coalport had fouled Benwill and prevented Benwill from winning the race. Accordingly, Coalport was demoted to second place, and Benwill took first place. The Ramseys first appealed the Stewards’ finding to the Commission, but the Commission affirmed the decision. The Ramseys then appealed to the 26th Judicial District Court, which reversed the decision and reinstated Coalport as the race winner. In its decision, the trial court held that the Commission should have assessed the Stewards’ decision with greater scrutiny and that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Coalport fouling Benwill changed the race outcome. 

The Commission appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that the Commission’s evidence showed that it was more likely than not that the foul changed the race outcome, the Commission was not too deferential to the Stewards’ decision, and the trial court did not give the Commission proper deference to determine the credibility of witnesses. The primary issue for the Second Circuit to determine was whether Coalport’s foul actually changed the outcome of the race. 

Imagine waking up one day and finding yourself out of a job simply because you are pregnant. This was the reality for Eryon Luke, as she claimed that her former employer, CPlace Forest Park SNF, LLC, fired her due to her pregnancy. This case, which attracted significant attention in legal circles, presents a deep dive into pregnancy discrimination lawsuits, exploring the application of state and federal laws and their impact on the employer-employee relationship.

Luke held a position as a Certified Nursing Assistant with Forest Park before her dismissal. Her employment was terminated during her maternity leave, which she contends was an act of discrimination by her employer. She asserted that Nottingham terminated her because she was pregnant, violating federal and Louisiana state laws.

To explain, under Louisiana law concerning unlawful employment practices, an employee with covered limitations, such as in this case, is allowed to take leave under any leave law or policy of the employer if another reasonable accommodation can be provided to the known limitations for medical needs arising from pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. LA Rev Stat § 23:342. Luke also claimed that Nottingham refused her request for a temporary, less strenuous role during her pregnancy, which she argued was another unlawful employment practice.

Before accepting a job, it is essential to review all policies provided to you by your potential employer, as these policies may not always be in your best interest. The following East Baton Rouge case demonstrates what may or may not be considered a “wage” payable at the end of employment. 

Ely Boucher was terminated from the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Office and was simultaneously provided with a copy of their Leave Policy. A provision to the Leave Policy stipulated that a certain amount of hours of paid-time-off leave were paid upon termination of employment. Subsequently, Boucher, who had over 914 paid-time-off leave hours, was paid for 300 hours per the policy provisions. Boucher then argued the Leave Policy violated La. R.S.23:631 and made a written demand on the Sheriff, for unpaid wages. When Boucher’s demand went unanswered, he filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. 

Boucher filed a motion seeking to exclude the testimony of the EBR Sheriff’s Human Resource Director concerning her interpretation of the Leave Policy. He argued the document was the best evidence of its contents. He also argued that the testimony should be excluded based on the contract interpretation laws.