Opinion
2024 CW 0632
12-30-2024
MARY HUDSON v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, LOUISIANA SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOUISIANA SCHOOL FOR THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED, AND MELANIE BRENCKLE
In Re: Louisiana Department of Education, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 697991.
BEFORE: WOLFE, MILLER, AND GREENE, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. The district court's May 17, 2024 judgment denying the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant, Louisiana Department of Education, as to its whistleblower claim is reversed. To be successful on a whistleblower claim, the plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) the employer committed an actual violation of state law; (2) the employee acted in good faith and advised the employer of the actual violation of law; (3) the employee, after advising her employer, then disclosed, threatened to disclose, objected, or refused to participate in the actual violation of state law, or participated in an outside investigation regarding the actual violation of law; and (4) the employee suffered a reprisal. See Kelly v. Louisiana Department of Veterans Affairs, 2021-1605 (La.App. 1st Cir. 9/14/22), 2022 WL 4232421, *4 (unpublished). The plaintiff must establish an actual violation of state law to prevail under this statute; a good faith belief that a violation occurred is insufficient. In addition, the plaintiff must establish that the employer, not simply its employees, violated state law, and the requisite disclosure must be made to an outside entity, agency, or public body. Id.
Defendant successfully pointed out an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to Plaintiff's whistleblower claim. The burden then shifted to Plaintiff to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(D) (1). We find Plaintiff failed to produce factual support sufficient to establish that there was an actual violation of state law or that she advised her employer of an actual violation of law or disclosed, threatened to disclose, or refused to participate in the actual violation of state law. As such, we find the district court erred in denying Defendant summary judgment as to Plaintiff's whistleblower claim.
Therefore, the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant, Louisiana Department of Education, against Plaintiff, Mary Hudson, is granted, and Mary Hudson's whistleblower claim against Louisiana Department of Education is dismissed with prejudice.
EW
SMM
HG