Willie Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
677 F.3d 258
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Love was hired by Tyson in 2007, but terminated after a positive drug test; later rehired with monthly testing and a second termination in 2008 for a positive test.
- Love alleged race discrimination and retaliation in a 2009 Title VII/42 U.S.C. §1981 suit and a state claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Love filed an EEOC charge May 2008; right-to-sue notice issued December 2008; complaint filed March 2009 while in Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
- Love did not disclose Tyson-related claims in Schedule B, listing “NONE” for contingent and unliquidated claims; bankruptcy plan confirmed September 2008 with no mention of the EEOC matter.
- Tyson moved for summary judgment asserting judicial estoppel based on nondisclosure; Love amended his bankruptcy schedule July 2009 to list the Tyson claims; district court granted summary judgment January 2010; this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial estoppel bars Love’s claims | Love argues inadvertence; insufficient motive to conceal | Tyson argues Love knowingly concealed to gain personal windfall | Yes, estoppel barred Love's claims |
| Whether Love's nondisclosure was inadvertent | Love lacked motive to conceal; disclosures amended later | Love had motive to conceal for personal benefit | No genuine issue; non-disclosure not inadvertent |
| Standard of review for judicial estoppel ruling | (not explicit) — focus on motive/inadvertence | Abuse of discretion review governs district court decision | Abuse of discretion standard applied; no reversible error |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in applying judicial estoppel | Equity favors considering estate interests; Love acted for estate | Nondisclosure was deliberate to gain personal benefit | No abuse of discretion; estoppel affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197 (5th Cir.1999) (duty to disclose assets; nondisclosure undermines bankruptcy system)
- Reed v. City of Arlington, 650 F.3d 571 (5th Cir.2011) (judicial estoppel to protect integrity of process; inquiry into prior positions)
- Kane v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 535 F.3d 380 (5th Cir.2008) (trustee/estate considerations; creditors’ interests important)
- Jethroe v. Omnova Solutions, Inc., 412 F.3d 598 (5th Cir.2005) (inadvertence analysis in bankruptcy context)
- In re Superior Crewboats, Inc., 374 F.3d 330 (5th Cir.2004) (non-disclosure versus debtor’s windfall; applicable when bankruptcy estate relevance)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (three-prong test for judicial estoppel; inadvertence considered in third prong)
- Hall v. GE Plastic Pacific PTE Ltd., 327 F.3d 391 (5th Cir.2003) (context of inadvertence in third prong of estoppel test)