275 So. 3d 911
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Dr. Sally Dobyns, a UL Lafayette professor, requested winter remote work as a medical accommodation for severe allergies beginning in 2008; the university initially permitted her to work from Connecticut without using sick leave.
- In 2011, after a change in administration, UL questioned her absences, reduced retroactive summer pay for 2009–2010, and removed her as Director of the Center for Gifted Education.
- Dobyns filed EEOC/LCHR charges on August 12, 2011, and sued the Board in December 2011 alleging disability harassment, failure to accommodate (ADA and LEDL), and retaliation (ADA and La. R.S. 23:967).
- A jury in February 2017 found for Dobyns on her retaliation claim and awarded $25,000; the trial court entered judgment on September 18, 2017.
- The Board appealed, arguing defective jury interrogatories and insufficient evidence of retaliation; the court considered timeliness issues and maintained the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the third jury interrogatory was defective | Interrogatory tracked the law and was read with proper jury instructions; not misleading | Interrogatory lumped factual events in a way that let jury find liability without required legal elements | Interrogatory was not defective; instructions + form fairly presented law and issues; manifest-error review applies and fails for Board |
| Whether Dobyns proved ADA retaliation | Dobyns engaged in protected activity (EEOC/LCHR charge); removal as Director and other actions were adverse and causally connected (removed 3 days after charge) | The Board had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons (need for on-campus director); evidence insufficient to show but-for causation | Jury reasonably found prima facie retaliation and rejected employer's reason as pretext; verdict affirmed |
| Whether La. R.S. 23:967 whistleblower claim was established | Disclosure/objection to unlawful practice was protected; removal constituted reprisal | Employer enforcement of policy and need for campus presence justified action | Court held same evidence supported reprisal under La. R.S. 23:967; verdict affirmed |
| Timeliness of appeal / procedural defects | N/A (appellee accepted mailing date) | Board's suspensive appeal might be untimely due to notice mailing dates | Court resolved ambiguity in favor of right to appeal, found motions timely, and maintained appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Quality Envtl. Processes, Inc. v. Energy Dev. Corp., 218 So.3d 1045 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (appellate courts must examine subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Stobart v. State of Louisiana, DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.) (standard for reversing factfinder: reasonable factual basis and manifest error)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.) (deference to factfinder on credibility and factual inferences)
- Georgia-Pacific, LLC v. Dresser-Rand Co., 207 So.3d 1131 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (review standards for jury interrogatories and legal error)
- Penalber v. Blount, 405 So.2d 1376 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (resolve doubt on notice-of-judgment mailing dates in favor of right to appeal)
- Feist v. Louisiana Dept. of Justice, Office of the Atty. Gen., 730 F.3d 450 (5th Cir.) (burden-shifting and but-for causation framework for ADA retaliation)
- Porter v. Houma Terrebonne Hous. Auth. Bd. of Comm'rs, 810 F.3d 940 (5th Cir.) (materially adverse test for retaliation: objective reasonable-worker standard)
- Nall v. BNSF Ry. Co., 917 F.3d 335 (5th Cir.) (causal link requires employer knowledge of protected activity)
- Yount v. S & A Rest. Corp., 226 F.3d 641 (5th Cir.) (employee communications need only reasonably convey concern about unlawful discrimination)
- Melancon v. Town of Amite City, 261 So.3d 7 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (scope and elements of Louisiana whistleblower statute)