275 So. 3d 911
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Dr. Sally Dobyns, a longtime UL Lafayette professor and center director, requested a winter accommodation (working from Connecticut) for severe allergies and participated in alternative scheduling/distance teaching beginning December 2008.
- In 2011 a new interim VP questioned her campus absences, reduced retroactively her summer pay for 2009–2010, and three days after she filed an EEOC/LCHR charge (Aug. 12, 2011) she was removed as Director (Aug. 15, 2011).
- Dobyns sued the Board under the ADA and Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law for harassment and failure to accommodate, and under the ADA and La. R.S. 23:967 for retaliation/whistleblower reprisal; she retired in 2013.
- A jury found for Dobyns on retaliation and awarded $25,000; the trial court entered judgment on Sept. 18, 2017, and later dismissed her attorney’s‑fees claim with prejudice (separately appealed).
- The Board appealed; the appellate court considered timeliness of post‑judgment filings and maintained the appeal, then reviewed challenges to (1) the jury verdict form/interrogatory and (2) sufficiency of evidence on retaliation.
- The court affirmed the Sept. 18, 2017 judgment, holding the interrogatory was not defective and that the record supported a retaliation verdict (including causation and pretext analysis), and assessed appeal costs to the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury interrogatory No. 3 was defective/misleading | Interrogatory tracked law and, together with instructions, fairly guided jury to decide retaliation | Interrogatory improperly allowed liability based on factual findings (reduced pay/removal) without requiring elements of retaliation (protected activity, adverse action, causation) | Not defective: instructions + form together provided correct law; no reversible error under manifest‑error review |
| Whether evidence supports ADA retaliation claim | Dobyns argued she engaged in protected activity (EEOC/LCHR filing) and suffered adverse action (removal, pay cut, forced leave) causally connected to protected activity; employer’s reasons were pretextual | Board argued Dobyns failed to prove but‑for causation and that removal/pay decisions were legitimate, non‑retaliatory (need director physically present) | Affirmed: prima facie established (protected activity, adverse action, temporal/causal link), employer’s stated reason rejected as pretext; jury verdict not manifestly erroneous |
| Whether La. R.S. 23:967 whistleblower claim was proven | Dobyns asserted she advised employer and disclosed conduct violative of law, then suffered reprisal (removal, pay cut) | Board argued no protected disclosure or causal reprisal under statute | Affirmed: evidence supported that removal was a reprisal following disclosure, satisfying statute’s elements |
| Timeliness and jurisdiction over appeal | N/A (Board sought to preserve appeal) | Board argued some post‑judgment deadlines might have been missed | Appeal maintained: clerk’s mailing date resolved in favor of appeal rights; motion for new trial/JNOV and suspensive appeal were timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Stobart v. State of Louisiana, DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (deference to factfinder credibility determinations)
- Georgia‑Pacific, LLC v. Dresser‑Rand Co., 207 So.3d 1131 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (review of jury instructions/interrogatories and de novo review when legal error infects factfinding)
- James v. AutoZone, Inc., 879 So.2d 162 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (manifest error review of jury interrogatories)
- Penalber v. Blount, 405 So.2d 1376 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (resolving uncertainty about notice-of-judgment date in favor of right to appeal)
- Feist v. Louisiana, Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Atty. Gen., 730 F.3d 450 (5th Cir.) (burden shifting and but‑for causation framework in ADA retaliation analysis)
- Porter v. Houma Terrebonne Hous. Auth. Bd. of Comm’rs, 810 F.3d 940 (5th Cir.) (definition of materially adverse action in retaliation context)
- Nall v. BNSF Ry. Co., 917 F.3d 335 (5th Cir.) (causal link requires employer knowledge of protected activity)