314 So.3d 861
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Cathy Derbonne was hired in 2009 as Executive Director of the Louisiana State Police Commission and supervised compliance by the Commission and its members with law and Commission rules.
- She investigated and reported alleged unlawful political contributions by Commission members and unlawful pay increases for certain State Police officials to the Commission and to external bodies (Board of Ethics, Governor’s counsel, Legislative Fiscal Office).
- After reporting and opposing the alleged misconduct, Derbonne alleges she suffered reprisals (accusations, reduction of duties/pay, surveillance, public pressure) and was constructively discharged in January 2017.
- Derbonne sued under La. R.S. 23:967 (Louisiana Whistleblower Statute). The Commission moved to dismiss via peremptory exception of no cause of action (later argued the proper exception was no right of action).
- The trial court dismissed with prejudice, concluding Derbonne did not qualify as a whistleblower because her reporting fell within her job duties.
- The First Circuit vacated, holding Derbonne’s amended petition alleges the elements of a cause of action under La. R.S. 23:967 and that an employee is not excluded from whistleblower protection merely because the reports were part of her job duties; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Derbonne’s petition state a cause of action under La. R.S. 23:967? | Derbonne contends her pleadings allege an actual violation of law, that she advised her employer, disclosed the violations, and suffered reprisals. | Commission contends pleadings fail to allege the Commission itself violated state law and thus no claim under §967. | Court: Petition (as amended) plausibly alleges the four elements of §967 and therefore states a cause of action. |
| Is Derbonne barred from bringing a §967 claim because reporting the violations was part of her job duties (i.e., no right of action)? | Derbonne argues the statute’s plain language protects any employee who in good faith advises the employer of a violation and discloses/objects, regardless of job duties. | Commission relies on precedent applying a "job‑duties" exclusion (Matthews/Stone) to argue she is not in the class protected. | Court: Job‑duties exclusion is not in §967’s text; employees who report as part of their duties are not precluded from §967 protection—Derbonne has a right of action. |
| Was the Commission’s procedural exception properly characterized? | Derbonne implied the objection should have been framed as no right of action. | Commission initially moved under no cause of action but argued Derbonne lacked whistleblower status. | Court: The objection to Derbonne’s status is more properly a no right of action; the appellate court addressed that issue and found Derbonne has a right of action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matthews v. Military Dept. ex rel. State, 970 So.2d 1089 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2007) (writ decision cited by trial court applying job‑duties exclusion)
- Dobyns v. Univ. of La. Sys., 275 So.3d 911 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2019) (sets out elements required under La. R.S. 23:967)
- Stone v. Entergy Servs., Inc., 9 So.3d 193 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2009) (applied job‑duties exclusion under an environmental whistleblower statute)
- Sasse v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 409 F.3d 773 (6th Cir. 2005) (federal decision applying job‑duties exclusion relied upon in out‑of‑state precedent)