Schroeder v. Greater New Orleans Federal Credit Union
664 F.3d 1016
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Schroeder joined GNOFCU as collections manager in May 2006 and was promoted in July 2007, expanding duties and receiving a raise.
- Schroeder raised concerns about potential fraud in GNOFCU's lending practices to Sanders, who dismissed them as internal issues.
- Schroeder was demoted in June 2008, after meetings with Sanders and HR, and salary was reduced in August 2008.
- Schroeder made multiple calls and a later attorney email/letter to the NCUA and pursued complaints with the FBI; she did not inform Sanders of the NCUA calls.
- GNOFCU conducted an internal audit with mixed results, finding some policy violations but no evidence of criminal fraud; Schroeder was terminated October 8, 2008.
- NCUA audited GNOFCU in December 2008, finding fraud among mortgage applicants but no employee or management wrongdoing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schroeder engaged in protected activity under § 1790b. | Schroeder engaged in protected activity via June 2008 NCUA calls and October 2008 NCUA/FBI communications. | Schroeder's internal complaints and timing do not amount to protected activity under § 1790b. | Schroeder could have engaged in protected activity; issue for trial remand. |
| Causal link between protected activity and adverse employment actions. | Timely demotion, pay cut, and termination followed protected activities. | No clear knowledge of protected activity; actions were based on performance and conduct. | Material facts exist; causation disputed; remand for trial. |
| Whether district court misread § 1790b’s scope, narrow vs broad construction. | Internal complaints to Board/Supervisory Committee and FBI may be within scope. | Statute restricts retaliation protections to reports to NCUA Board or Attorney General. | We decline to adopt a broader internal-complaint scope; but remand on factual issues. |
| Whether Louisiana § 23:967(A) provides broader protection and supports reversal. | Louisiana statute may offer protections beyond § 1790b. | No sufficient causation to defeat summary judgment. | District court’s summary judgment on § 23:967(A) improper; remand warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simas v. First Citizens' Fed. Credit Union, 170 F.3d 37 (1st Cir.1999) (causation in whistleblower context)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation)
- Smith v. Xerox Corp., 602 F.3d 320 (5th Cir.2010) (motivating factor standard in retaliation context)
- Roberson v. Alltel Info. Services, 373 F.3d 647 (5th Cir.2004) (causation proof in retaliation claims; temporal proximity considerations)
- LeMaire v. La. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383 (5th Cir.2007) (temporal proximity as evidence of causation)
- Nowlin v. Resolution Trust Corp., 33 F.3d 498 (5th Cir.1994) (causation factors in retaliation cases)