158 So. 3d 173
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Terri Hunter was hired by the Rapides Parish Coliseum Authority as an office manager in February 2013 and was terminated on May 20, 2013.
- During employment she identified and reported suspected payroll and financial improprieties to the Authority’s auditor, Authority officials (Chairman and Vice‑Chairman), and the Rapides Parish District Attorney, which prompted a criminal investigation.
- Hunter sued the Authority asserting, among other claims, a whistleblower claim under La. R.S. 23:967 (retaliation for reporting violations of law).
- The Authority moved for summary judgment arguing it is not an "employer" under the whistleblower statute by relying on the LEDL definition in La. R.S. 23:302(2) (which limits coverage to employers with 20+ employees).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Authority but relied on a different ground (that Hunter was a probationary employee) and considered evidence not formally admitted for the motion; Hunter appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Authority qualifies as an "employer" under La. R.S. 23:967 | Hunter: the whistleblower statute does not define "employer," and the LEDL definition (La. R.S. 23:302) should not be imported to limit whistleblower protection | Authority: the LEDL definition of "employer" (including the 20+ employees threshold) applies and thus the Authority is not an employer under section 23:967 | Court: reversed — LEDL's definition does not extend to La. R.S. 23:967; Authority failed to prove entitlement to summary judgment on its argued ground |
| Whether trial court properly granted summary judgment on a different ground (probationary‑employee) and using evidence not admitted for the SJ motion | Hunter: trial court erred under La. C.C.P. art. 966 by granting SJ on an issue not raised and by relying on evidence not admitted for the motion | Authority: (implicit) alternative ground justified dismissal | Court: trial court erred; cannot affirm SJ on issues or evidence not presented under art. 966(F) |
| Whether any probationary‑employee exception to whistleblower protection or related public‑policy defense justified dismissal | Hunter: no evidence of probationary status; even if probationary, no statutory exception exists and such an exception would violate public policy | Authority: argued Hunter was probationary and therefore not entitled to whistleblower protection | Court: declined to resolve; appellate consideration of that alternative ground/evidence denied under art. 966(F) (remanded for further proceedings) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ray v. City of Bossier, 859 So.2d 264 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (discussion of employing LEDL definition of "employer" in whistleblower context)
- Langley v. Pinkerton's, Inc., 220 F. Supp. 2d 575 (M.D. La.) (district court discussion on applicability of LEDL definitions)
- Succession of Holbrook, 144 So.3d 845 (La. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)