Ballaron v. Equitable Shipyards, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. CA-8023,CA-8023 |
| Citation | 521 So.2d 481 |
| Parties | Brigette K. BALLARON, et al. v. EQUITABLE SHIPYARDS, INC., et al. 521 So.2d 481, 109 Lab.Cas. P 55,901, 3 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. (BNA) 520 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Louis L. Robein, Jr., Gardner, Robein & Healey, Metairie, for appellants.
Sessions, Fishman, Rosenson, Boisfontaine, Nathan & Winn, Robert E. Barkley, Jr., Francis R. White, III, Michael Meunier, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee Equitable Shipyards, Inc.
John B. Waldrip, Partee, Waldrip, Mott, Tynan and Evans, New Orleans, for appellee Enquire, Inc.
Before SCHOTT, BARRY and BYRNES, JJ.
On appeal, plaintiffs-appellants, Brigette Ballaron and Jules Theobold, assert that the trial court erred in dismissing their lawsuit against their employer, Equitable Shipyards, Inc. (Equitable) and Enquire, Inc. (Enquire), a polygraph service by summary judgments. We affirm.
In April 1983, Equitable was informed that company funds had possibly been embezzled by a former employee, Linda Callais. This prompted an internal investigation which ultimately led to the arrest of Callais. As part of this investigation, Ballaron, an accounts payable supervisor, and Theobold, chief accountant, were asked to submit to polygraph examinations administered by Enquire. Both consented to taking the polygraph tests, but objected to signing the following consent form, which was required by Enquire before conducting the polygraph examination.
I, do hereby, voluntarily and without duress, agree to the examination of myself by the polygraph technique. I understand the reason why I am taking the test(s) and agree to hold harmless, Enquire, the examiner giving the test and any and all agents of Enquire or the examiner. I agree to the release of any and/or all information discussed during the interview to the requestor of this test. I understand that the results of the tests(s) will be furnished to the requestor. I agree not to institute and (sic) civil or criminal action against Enquire or the agents of Enquire because of the information revealed by himself during the interview or because of the results of the tests(s).
As a result of appellants' refusal to sign the consent forms, Enquire declined to administer the polygraph examination. Subsequently, the president of Equitable explained to Ballaron and Theobold that they had only two options: either sign the consent form and submit to the polygraph examination or be discharged for failing to comply with this request. Both Ballaron and Theobold steadfastly refused to sign the consent form and were discharged. Later the pair filed suit against Equitable and Enquire alleging damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of right, and negligence in administering the polygraph test. After the trial court dismissed the suit on summary judgments, this appeal was perfected.
By their sole assignment of error appellants contend the trial court erroneously granted the motions for summary judgment dismissing their claims against Equitable and Enquire. We disagree.
A motion for summary judgment shall be granted "... if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." C.C.P. Art. 966(B). Our review of the record in the present case convinces us that the trial court did not err in granting the summary judgments.
Appellants assert that Equitable's actions in discharging them for refusal to sign the Enquire consent form constituted an abuse of right. We disagree. Under C.C. Art. 2747:
A man is at liberty to dismiss a hired servant attached to his person or family without assigning any reason for so doing. The servant is also free to depart without assigning any cause.
Moreover, an employer hired for an indefinite term may be dismissed by the employer at any time and for whatever reason, without the employer incurring liability for the discharge. Jackson v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 393 So.2d 243, (La. App. 1st. Cir.1980). See also: Gil v. Metal Service Corporation, 412 So.2d 706 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982), writ denied 414 So.2d 379 (La.1982).
In the present case, there is no dispute that both appellants were employed for indefinite terms and as such were subject to discretionary discharge by Equitable. Appellants argue, however, that notwithstanding their employment-at-will status, their discharge under the circumstances was an abuse of right.
To justify application of Louisiana's "Abuse of Rights Doctrine", one of the following conditions must exist:
(1) the exercise of rights exclusively for the purpose of harming another or with the predominant motive to cause harm; (2) the non-existence of a serious and legitimate interest that is worthy of judicial protection; (3) the use of the right in violation of moral rules, good faith or elementary fairness; or (4) the exercise of the right for a purpose other than that for which it was granted.
Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. International Harvester, 368 So.2d 1009 (La.1979). From our review of the record, we conclude that appellants failed to prove that any of these criteria were met. The depositions of Ballaron and Theobold, and an affidavit by Equitable's president show that there was no malice or ill-intent behind Equitable's firing of the appellants. According to Equitable's president he was merely following company policy when he discharged the appellants and, in fact, he regretted having to do so. Equitable also clearly had a legitimate interest in requiring their employees to submit to polygraph examinations. Having discovered that an employee had embezzled company funds, Equitable certainly had good reason to investigate the full scope of the embezzlement problem.
Moreover, in our opinion, Equitable did not use its right to discharge appellants in bad faith or in a manner inconsistent with fundamental fairness. To the contrary, the facts suggest that Equitable acted responsibly by mandating that certain employees take the polygraph exam. When Ballaron and Theobold refused to cooperate with the polygraph examiner's request that they sign the consent form, Equitable had little recourse but to follow company policy and discharge the appellants. We cannot state that in so doing Equitable acted in less than good faith. In sum, we find that Equitable did not abuse its right to discharge "at will" employees Balloran and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Touro Infirmary
...incurring liability for the discharge. Williams v. Delta Haven Inc., 416 So.2d 637 (La.App. 2d Cir.1982); Ballaron v. Equitable Shipyards, Inc., 521 So.2d 481 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988), writ denied 522 So.2d 571 (La.1988); Gil v. Metal Service Corporation, 412 So.2d 706 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982),......
-
Hanna v. Shell Exploration & Prod., Inc.
...incurring liability for the discharge. Williams v. Delta Haven Inc., 416 So.2d 637 (La.App. 2d Cir.1982) ; Ballaron v. Equitable Shipyards, Inc., 521 So.2d 481 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988), writ denied 522 So.2d 571 (La.1988) ; Gil v. Metal Service Corporation, 412 So.2d 706 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982......
-
Fourcade v. City of Gretna
...ways the right of privacy may be invaded. Jaubert v. Crowley Post-Signal, Inc., 375 So.2d 1386 (La.1979); Ballaron v. Equitable Shipyards, Inc., 521 So.2d 481 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988); Gerard v. Parish of Jefferson, 424 So.2d 440 (La.App. 5th Cir.1982). Because the facts pled by appellant in ......
-
McInnis v. McInnis, 24,772-CA
...Bk. and Trust Co. v. Hammons, 540 So.2d 461 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 544 So.2d 402 (La.1989); Ballaron v. Equitable Shipyards, Inc., 521 So.2d 481 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988), writ denied, 522 So.2d 571 In the case at hand, inasmuch as the McInnises are clearly not a party to the tru......