Juan Gaspard v. Bechtel Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 15, 2019
• Docket: 18-31104
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 18-31104 Document: 00514916433 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-31104 United States Court of Appeals

Summary Calendar Fifth Circuit

FILED April 15, 2019

JUAN GASPARD, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk 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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:16-CV-1431

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* 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

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 18-31104 Document: 00514916433 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2019

No. 18-31104 (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.