Menard v. Targa Resources, 56 F.4th 1019

Menard worked as an environmental, safety, and health specialist at Targa’s Venice, LA plant; his duties included ensuring environmental compliance.
District manager Berthelot allegedly told Menard to dilute sewage samples with bottled water to avoid regulatory exceedances; Menard refused and reported the directive to his supervisor.
Six days after reporting, Targa terminated Menard for alleged performance issues; Menard sued under the Louisiana Environmental Whistleblower Statute (LEWS), alleging discharge for (1) refusing to dilute samples and (2) reporting the request.
The district court denied Targa’s summary-judgment motion, holding Menard’s report was not protected (because it was part of his job) but that his refusal was protected under Cheramie v. J. Wayne Plaisance, Inc.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit found controlling Louisiana law unclear on two threshold questions: whether refusals constitute “disclosures” under the amended LEWS, and whether reports made as part of an employee’s normal duties are protected.
Because resolution of those questions is determinative and implicates state-law interests, the Fifth Circuit certified both questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court rather than decide them itself.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a refusal to engage in illegal or environmentally damaging conduct qualifies as a "disclosure" under the current LEWS	Menard: Cheramie treats refusal as an extreme form of complaint and thus protected; refusal should be covered despite statutory language change	Targa: The post‑1991 statute protects those who "disclose" or "threaten to disclose"; a refusal is not a "disclosure" under the amended text	No definitive ruling; question certified to the Louisiana Supreme Court
Whether reports to a supervisor are protected when reporting is part of the employee’s normal job duties	Menard: LEWS protects employees who report employer practices they reasonably believe violate law, regardless of job duties	Targa: If reporting is part of the employee’s job, LEWS should not shield the employee from discipline (job‑duties exclusion)	No definitive ruling; question certified to the Louisiana Supreme Court

Cheramie v. J. Wayne Plaisance, Inc., 595 So. 2d 619 (La. 1992) (held refusal to participate in illegal environmental work constituted protected complaint under pre‑1991 LEWS)
Borcik v. Crosby Tugs, L.L.C., 222 So. 3d 672 (La. 2017) (discusses LEWS and state constitutional environmental policy)
Stone v. Entergy Servs., Inc., 9 So. 3d 193 (La. Ct. App. 2009) (adopts a job‑duties exception to LEWS protection)
Matthews v. Mil. Dep’t ex rel. State, 970 So. 2d 1089 (La. Ct. App. 2007) (supports job‑duties exclusion)
Derbonne v. State Police Commission, 314 So. 3d 861 (La. Ct. App. 2020) (rejects job‑duties exclusion as atextual and contrary to whistleblower policy)
City of Fort Worth v. Pridgen, 653 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. 2022) (refuses to recognize job‑duties exclusion under Texas whistleblower law)
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., 784 N.W.2d 220 (Minn. 2010) (holds reports made as part of job duties are not whistleblowing under Minnesota law)
Swindol v. Aurora Flight Scis. Corp., 805 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 2015) (sets factors for federal certification to state supreme court)