Articles Posted in Business Dispute

The old Disney adage from the original Bambi movie, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all,” is probably wise life advice. Still, when it comes to legal advice, any good attorney will tell you, “if you can’t establish the falsity of the claims said about you, then you likely don’t have a defamation claim.” Nevertheless, after some not-so-nice comments appeared in a local newspaper article detailing a Louisiana attorney’s alleged outburst outside a courtroom, he sued for defamation. Still, the courts were ultimately unconvinced by his arguments.

Attorney Martin Regan (“Regan”) represented St. Bernard Parish President David Peralta (“Peralta”) in a case involving multiple criminal indictments, including perjury and filing false records related to using campaign funds for his personal gambling. A grand jury found Peralta guilty on those charges brought by the District Attorney’s Office with the help of Assistant Attorney Generals David Caldwell (“Caldwell”) and Molly Lancaster (“Lancaster”). At some point during or after the proceedings, Regan confronted Lancaster about an issue in the case. According to Caldwell, the conversation between the attorneys escalated to Regan threatening Lancaster and swearing at her. 

Caldwell shared his version of the events he witnessed with the New Orleans Advocate, which published his account in a newspaper article. In part, Caldwell was quoted stating that Regan was “threatening his female assistant,” “dropping F-bombs on her,” and thought that if he had gotten close enough to Regan, “he might have taken a swing at [Caldwell].” The newspaper also reached out to Regan for his comments, who, after calling Caldwell a “liar,” continued to state that he “didn’t lose his cool” and “never swore at anybody.” After that, Regan filed a lawsuit against Caldwell, the State Attorney General, and the Office of the Attorney General, seeking damages for defamation. 

Knowing and adhering to the Rules of Civil Procedure in bringing a lawsuit cannot be understated in its importance. Before a lawsuit makes it to court, various steps and procedures must be followed for the case to proceed. Chief among these pre-trial requirements is establishing that the court has the power to decide the present case, otherwise known as the court’s jurisdiction over the case. If a court lacks judicial control over a party to the case or the subject matter involved, the case should not proceed, and the court cannot hand down a valid, binding judgment.

In a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment, assault, mental and physical abuse, perjury, and character defamation, Tyniski Evans represented herself against Dillard University (Dillard). Dillard responded to Evans’s complaint by moving for dismissal for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which the court may grant relief. See Fed.Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). The district court granted Dillard’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed without prejudice, permitting Evans to bring the case again. 

Evans appealed this dismissal, arguing the court had federal subject matter jurisdiction due to Evans receiving financial aid from the Department of Education. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal by the district court, finding that Evans’s complaint did not sufficiently show that the federal court had the power to adjudicate her lawsuit. 

Some mistakes can cost you your job. Rules and regulations are drafted and enacted in the medical field to ensure a safe work environment. Before breaking a rule to get your job done, consider the danger in which you could place yourself or your interests. The following lawsuit from Slidell shows how unemployment benefits can be taken away due to employee misconduct. 

Rita Jimenez was a supervisor of phlebotomy for the Slidell Memorial Hospital. Her boss tasked Jimenez to handle scheduling for her area. Jimenez created a schedule that included several employees that lacked the required CPR certification; their certifications had expired, or they needed more training. Jimenez was caught and warned about this scheduling. The problem is that Jimenez could not short-staff her area, but there needed to be more certified employees. She scheduled more uncertified workers; she was fired after her third scheduling error. 

Jimenez sought a judgment certifying her right to unemployment benefits. Her workplace administrative review board (Board of Review) found that she was rightly denied unemployment because she was fired for misconduct. Jimenez appealed that ruling to the district court, which affirmed the Board’s decision. Jimenez then appealed that district court decision to Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeals. In the appeal, Jimenez argued even though she was responsible for scheduling employees, her boss was ultimately responsible for terminating employees who lacked the requisite certifications. Therefore Jimenez argued there was no misconduct in her actions.

Discrimination in the workplace should never be accepted. If you feel that you have been discriminated against for age or disability reasons, the law allows you to seek damages. A lawsuit of that nature is not unlike others; proof and evidence are required to proceed with your claims. The following case out of New Orleans shows why sufficient evidence is required to proceed with a discrimination or hostile workplace claim.   

Dr. Gerald Lahoste is a tenured associate professor in the Psychology Department at the University of New Orleans (UNO) Psychology Department. Dr. Lahoste filed a lawsuit against the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (LSU), asserting his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act were violated. Dr. Lahoste alleged LSU did not provide him with reasonable accommodations for his major depressive disorder. He argued he had been harassed and discriminated against, and his journal articles and grant had decreased due to his request for accommodations. 

LSU filed a motion for summary judgment, as they believed Dr. LaHoste could not prove discrimination or that a violation of Title VII. LSU also alleged that Dr. LaHoste failed to provide documentation regarding his diagnosis. Dr. LaHoste responded to the motion for summary judgment by arguing that LSU did not meet to discuss his condition. The trial court granted summary judgment for LSU, effectively ending his lawsuit. Dr. LaHoste appealed the trial court’s decision in hopes of overturning it.