186 So. 3d 185
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Brenda Causey, a Winn-Dixie warehouse employee, alleged she was injured and observed a riding floor-sweeper operating roughly on June 18, 2013.
- She completed inspection forms documenting the sweeper’s unsafe condition and notified supervisors and corporate headquarters.
- Winn-Dixie initially declined to repair the machine but later agreed to replace the wheel and did not require Causey to operate that sweeper thereafter.
- Causey was terminated on July 10, 2013; Winn-Dixie cited her failure to place a completed inspection sheet in the designated drop-box.
- Causey sued under Louisiana Revised Statute 23:967 (Whistleblower Statute), claiming her termination was retaliation for reporting a violation of La. R.S. 23:13 (employer duty to provide reasonably safe employment).
- The trial court sustained Winn-Dixie’s peremptory exception of no cause of action and dismissed Causey’s suit; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Causey engaged in protected activity under La. R.S. 23:967 | Causey reported an actual violation of La. R.S. 23:13 (unsafe equipment) and was retaliated against | Winn-Dixie contends Causey only complained internally about a condition and did not report an actual statutory violation | Court held Causey alleged at most a good-faith belief of a violation, not an actual violation required by the statute; no protected activity shown |
| Whether the petition states a legally sufficient cause of action under the Whistleblower Statute | Causey argued facts support a whistleblower claim and damages/fees | Winn-Dixie argued the facts, even if true, do not allege an actual violation of law as required | Court sustained no-cause-of-action exception and dismissed the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Naquin v. Bollinger Shipyards, Inc., 147 So.3d 207 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014) (standards for peremptory exception of no cause of action; de novo review)
- Accardo v. Louisiana Health Servs. & Indem. Co., 943 So.2d 381 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2006) (plaintiff must show actual violation of law; good-faith belief insufficient)
- Lytell v. Hushfield, 408 So.2d 1344 (La. 1982) (employer duty extends to equipment used in employment)
- Dupree v. City of New Orleans, 765 So.2d 1002 (La. 2000) (not every imperfection creates an unreasonable risk)
- Lasyone v. Kansas City S. R.R., 786 So.2d 682 (La. 2001) (injury from a vice in a thing does not alone make it unreasonably dangerous)