Opinion
NO. 2015 CW 0436
07-01-2015
ANDREW SAWYER v. CB&I, INC., THE SHAW GROUP, INC., SHAW SUNDLAND FABRICATORS, LLC, SHAW FABRICATION MANUFACTURES, INC., CHRIS BARBER, JONATHON LOTT, BRENDON LOTT, ZACHARY FOSTER, ERIC HARRIS, TIDUS GREEN, TOMMY FOSTER, AND TONY JAMES
In Re: CB&I, Inc., The Shaw Group, Inc., Shaw Sundland Fabricators, LLC, Shaw Fabrication Manufactures, Inc., applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 624,452. BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, WELCH, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND DRAKE, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Claims of retaliation in violation of Louisiana's whistleblower statute, La. R.S. 23:967, are delictual in nature and thus subject to the general one-year prescriptive period for delictual actions provided in La. C.C. art. 34 92. Nolan v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No. 2, 01-175 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/27/01), 790 So.2d 725, 733; See Brunett v. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 96-535 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/20/96), 685 So.2d 618, 620, writ denied, 97-186 (La. 3/14/97), 689 So.2d 1385. Based on our de novo review in this matter, we find that the plaintiff, Andrew Sawyer, has not met his burden of establishing a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was a suspension or an interruption of that prescriptive period. As plaintiff's whistleblower claim has prescribed, the trial court erred in denying summary judgment on that cause of action. La. C.C.P. art. 966(E). Accordingly, the writ is granted in part. That portion of the trial court's April 13, 2015 judgment that denied the corporate employer defendants' motion for summary judgment on that issue is reversed. We grant the motion for summary judgment in part, and dismiss the plaintiff's claim of retaliation in violation of Louisiana's whistleblower statute, La. R.S. 23:967, with prejudice. The writ is denied as to all remaining issues.
PMc
TMH
EGD
Guidry, J. and Welch, J., dissent. COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT