Eric Borcik v. Crosby Tugs, L.L.C.
2017 WL 1716226, 222 So.3d 672, 84 ERC (BNA) 1517 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The term 'good faith' under the Louisiana Environmental Whistleblower Act, La. R.S. 30:2027, requires only that an employee has an honest belief that a violation of an environmental law, rule, or regulation has occurred. It does not require an additional showing that the employee acted without malice or intent to harm the employer.
Facts:
- Beginning in 2008, Eric Borcik was employed as a deckhand by Crosby Tugs, L.L.C. (Crosby).
- In July 2010, Borcik was transferred to the M/V NELDA FAYE.
- Borcik alleged that over a three-year period, the lead captain of the NELDA FAYE ordered him to dump waste oil into navigable waters and otherwise violate environmental laws.
- Borcik claimed that he complied with these orders.
- In May 2013, Borcik emailed Crosby’s Chief Administrative Officer expressing 'concerns' and fear of 'retaliation.'
- Borcik later met in person with the Chief Administrative Officer to discuss his concerns.
- Following this meeting, Crosby transferred Borcik to another boat and subsequently terminated his employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Eric Borcik sued Crosby Tugs, L.L.C. in the United States District Court (federal trial court), alleging retaliatory termination in violation of the Louisiana Environmental Whistleblower Act.
- At the conclusion of a jury trial, the judge instructed the jury that 'good faith' required both an honest belief of a violation and that the report was not made to seek an unfair advantage or to harm the employer.
- The jury found that Borcik had a reasonable belief a violation occurred, but that he did not make his report in good faith.
- Based on the jury's verdict, the district court entered a final judgment in favor of the defendant, Crosby.
- Borcik, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- Finding no clear controlling precedent from the Louisiana Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit certified the question of the meaning of 'good faith' under the statute to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term 'good faith' under the Louisiana Environmental Whistleblower Act, R.S. 30:2027, require an employee to act without an intent to seek an unfair advantage or harm their employer, in addition to having an honest belief that an environmental violation occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Crichton, J.
No. The term 'good faith,' as used in R.S. 30:2027, means an employee is acting with an honest belief that a violation of an environmental law, rule, or regulation occurred. The court reasoned that the primary purpose of the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act (LEQA) is to protect the environment, a goal furthered by encouraging employees to report violations. The statute already contains an objective 'reasonable belief' standard, so interpreting 'good faith' as a separate, subjective standard of 'honest belief' avoids making the term redundant. Adopting the employer's proposed 'absence of malice' standard would improperly shift the focus from the employer's actions to the employee's motives and would create a chilling effect on reporting, thereby undermining the statute's purpose. This interpretation aligns with the court's previous broad reading of the LEQA in Cheramie v. J. Wayne Plaisance, Inc.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the standard for whistleblower protection under Louisiana's environmental laws, making it more favorable to employees. By rejecting an 'absence of malice' component, the court prevents employers from defeating valid claims by attacking the whistleblower's personal motives. This ruling establishes a clear two-part framework for whistleblower claims, requiring both a subjective 'honest belief' (good faith) and an objective 'reasonable belief' that a violation occurred. This precedent will likely embolden employees to report environmental violations and will require lower courts to focus on the substance of the report rather than the reporter's potential animosity toward the employer.
Unlock the full brief for Eric Borcik v. Crosby Tugs, L.L.C.