Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Juan GASPARD, Plaintiff - Appellant v. BECHTEL OIL GAS & CHEMICALS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INCORPORATED, incorrectly referred to as Bechtel Oil Gas & Chemicals Inc and/or Bechtel Corp, Defendant - Appellee
Juan Gaspard alleges that Bechtel, his former employer, fired him in violation of the Louisiana Whistleblower Statute (LWS). See LA. STAT. ANN. § 23:967. Even though Bechtel’s stated reason for firing Gaspard may have been pretextual, the district court granted summary judgment to Bechtel because (1) Gaspard never notified Bechtel that it was violating state law, and (2) Gaspard only complained to Bechtel of misconduct by his fellow employees, not misconduct attributable to Bechtel.
On appeal, Gaspard concedes that the district court’s ruling “is based on interpretation of the language of LSA-R.S. § 23:967 by Louisiana courts of appeal and federal district courts.” But he argues those courts have misread the statute to improperly limit the scope of LWS protection. Hoping for a broader interpretation, Gaspard asks this court to certify four questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
“To determine issues of state law, we look to the final decisions of that state’s highest court.” Chaney v. Dreyfus Serv. Corp., 595 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2010). But, “[a]lone, the absence of a definitive answer from the state supreme court on a particular question is not sufficient to warrant certification.” Guilbeau v. Hess Corp., 854 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). “Rather, we must decide the case as would an intermediate appellate court of the state in question if ․ the highest court of the state has not spoken on the issue or issues presented, and we are reluctant to certify absent genuinely unsettled matters of state law.” Id. (quotations and footnote omitted). “When, as here, the appellate decisions are in accord, the law is not unsettled, and certification is unwarranted.” Id.
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-31104
Decided: April 15, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)