Herster v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ., 887 F.3d 177

Margaret Herster was hired at LSU’s School of Art (2009) initially as part-time Instructor, later converted to a full-time Professional-in-Residence; husband Scott Sullivan was a law professor at LSU.
Herster complained internally about low pay relative to male colleagues and about School of Art’s collection of unapproved course fees; she filed EEOC charge and internal complaints alleging sex discrimination and hostile work environment.
Herster’s Professional-in-Residence appointment was not renewed after faculty panel votes citing teaching, creative activity, and collegiality concerns; faculty chair Kimberly Arp prepared a report and later shredded his notes.
LSU did not renew Herster’s appointment (term ended January 2013); she sued LSU asserting Title VII pay discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, Louisiana whistleblower claim (La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967), and state spoliation claim; Sullivan alleged loss of consortium.
District court dismissed the spoliation claim at summary judgment, granted JMOL at trial dismissing Herster’s Title VII pay and Louisiana whistleblower claims (left two retaliation claims to jury; jury found for LSU); Herster and Sullivan appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Title VII pay discrimination — whether evidence (direct or circumstantial) supports claim	Herster argued Parker’s "trailing spouse" comments were direct evidence and comparators show pay disparity	LSU argued comparators were not similarly situated (different titles, duties, qualifications); Parker’s remarks were stray/inferential	Affirmed: JMOL for LSU — no direct evidence and comparators not similarly situated, so no legally sufficient evidence
Louisiana whistleblower statute — whether Herster proved an actual violation of state law based on course fees	Herster argued School of Art collected unauthorized course fees in violation of LA Const. art. VII, §2.1, and she disclosed/threatened disclosure	LSU argued no showing that fees were a constitutional violation as a matter of law; plaintiff only had belief and internal audit summary, not established legal violation	Affirmed: JMOL for LSU — plaintiff failed to prove an actual violation of Louisiana law required for whistleblower protection
State-law spoliation — whether LSU intentionally destroyed evidence (Arp’s notes)	Herster argued Arp shredded panel notes after HR advised not to turn them over; claimed spoliation	LSU argued no policy required retention, no evidence LSU instructed intentional destruction, and spoliation requires intentional destruction	Affirmed: Summary judgment for LSU — no evidence of intentional destruction by LSU

Carmona v. Southwest Airlines Co., 604 F.3d 848 (5th Cir.) (JMOL standard; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co., 342 F.3d 569 (5th Cir.) (credibility and weight are jury functions)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (framework for circumstantial discrimination proof)
Taylor v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 554 F.3d 510 (5th Cir.) (comparator must be paid more for substantially same responsibility)
Portis v. First Nat’l Bank, 34 F.3d 325 (5th Cir.) (direct evidence defined; examples of direct discriminatory statements)
Etienne v. Spanish Lake Truck & Casino Plaza, L.L.C., 778 F.3d 473 (5th Cir.) (when comments may be direct evidence)
Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp., L.P., 427 F.3d 987 (5th Cir.) (direct evidence requires no inference to prove discriminatory motive)
Wallace v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 271 F.3d 212 (5th Cir.) (vague or remote comments insufficient as direct evidence)
Wilson v. Tregre, 787 F.3d 322 (5th Cir.) (whistleblower statute requires proof of an actual violation of state law)
Burge v. St. Tammany Parish, 336 F.3d 363 (5th Cir.) (Louisiana spoliation tort requires intentional destruction of evidence)