Case Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter arises from an application for supervisory and/or remedial writs by the State of Louisiana through the New Orleans Center for Creative Arts (relator) from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Div. A, No. 2009–01902, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2014–C–0925. The plaintiff sought relief under La. R.S. 23:967; the court evaluated whether the plaintiff had presented evidence that the relator engaged in conduct constituting a violation of state law for purposes of that statute.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, under La. R.S. 23:967(A)(1), the employee (plaintiff) established that the employer engaged in workplace conduct constituting an actual violation of state law.
2. Whether summary judgment in favor of the relator is appropriate based on the plaintiff's evidentiary showing (or lack thereof).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began with the governing statutory requirement: to maintain an action under La. R.S. 23:967 the employee must show the employer engaged in workplace conduct that constitutes an actual violation of state law. Relying on Accardo and Hale, the court examined the record and determined the plaintiff "has failed to present any evidence indicating relator engaged in any conduct which would constitute a 'violation of state law' for purposes of La. R.S. 23:967(A)(1)." Because the plaintiff did not satisfy this statutory element, the court concluded that the district court's judgment could not stand and that relief for the plaintiff was not supported by the record. The court therefore reversed the district court and granted summary judgment in favor of the relator. Two judges (JOHNSON, C.J., and HUGHES, J.) indicated they would deny the application.

Holding and Implications

The judgment of the district court is reversed, and summary judgment is granted in relator's favor.

Implications: The direct effect is that the plaintiff's action under La. R.S. 23:967 failed for lack of evidence that the employer violated state law, resulting in judgment for the relator. The opinion applies existing precedent (Accardo and Hale) and does not announce a new legal principle beyond that application.