421 F.Supp.3d 399
W.D. La.2019Background
- Plaintiff (hired 2001) worked as a field surveillance epidemiologist in Acadiana CARES' HIV/AIDS program and was terminated in August 2018.
- Supervisor allegedly demanded Plaintiff obtain/report personally identifiable information for persons who tested HIV-negative; Plaintiff refused, citing HIPAA and Louisiana law, and reported the conduct to state officials.
- After repeated refusals Plaintiff was placed on a supervisory plan and then fired.
- Plaintiff alleges a pattern of age-based comments and inquiries about retirement directed at her and other older co-workers.
- Plaintiff brought claims under La. R.S. 23:967 (Louisiana Whistleblower Statute) and the ADEA; defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing (1) the whistleblower statute excludes nonprofits, (2) it covers only violations of state statutes (not regs/federal law), and (3) ADEA claims are conclusory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether La. R.S. 23:967 applies to nonprofit employers | Norris: the statute protects employees of employers that control/direct workers; nonprofits can be "employers." | Acadiana CARES: LEDL's definition/carve-outs exclude nonprofits, so whistleblower statute shouldn't apply. | Court: statute's text and context do not incorporate LEDL's nonprofit carve-out; ordinary meaning of "employer" applies — whistleblower statute can reach nonprofits. |
| Whether "violations of law" under La. R.S. 23:967 is limited to state statutes (and excludes state regs/constitutional/privacy provisions and federal law) | Norris: she alleged violations of Louisiana Constitution, Sanitary Code, civil-code privacy provisions and thus reported violations of state law (including regs with force of law). | Acadiana CARES: plaintiff alleges federal law and state regulations, not state statutes; statute covers only state statutes. | Court: "violations of law" can include state regulations and constitutional/privacy provisions that have force of law; Fifth Circuit precedent excludes federal-law-only claims, but plaintiff alleged state-law/regulatory violations — whistleblower claim survives. |
| Sufficiency of ADEA pleadings — disparate treatment, harassment, and retaliation | Norris: alleged repeated age-based comments, inquiries about retirement, adverse actions (probation, supervisory plan, termination), timely EEOC charge; thus pleads plausible ADEA disparate-treatment, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims. | Acadiana CARES: allegations are threadbare, conclusory recitals of ADEA elements insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal. | Court: applying Twombly/Iqbal, the factual allegations (frequent bi-weekly age-based comments, differential treatment of younger coworkers, adverse actions proximate to EEOC filing) are sufficient to state plausible ADEA disparate-treatment, harassment, and retaliation claims; motion denied as to ADEA counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1989) (plain-meaning rule in statutory construction)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (apply Twombly plausibility to complaints)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (plaintiff need not plead prima facie case to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., 610 F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 2010) (but-for causation standard for ADEA)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (but-for causation in ADEA cases)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (hostile-work-environment severity/pervasiveness standard)
- Wilson v. Tregre, 787 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2015) (interpretation that whistleblower statute does not protect reporting of federal-law violations)
- Hunter v. Rapides Parish Coliseum Auth., 158 So.3d 173 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2015) (state appellate decision holding whistleblower statute can apply to non-governmental employers)