Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp.
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 836 So. 2d 9 (La. 2002).
Cited by
- State v. Barabin 124 So. 3d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
- State of Louisiana v. Demetrius D. Nash La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
- State v. Green 79 So. 3d 1013 La. 2012
- State v. Marshall 70 So. 3d 1106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
- State v. Boudoin 56 So. 3d 233 La. 2011
- State v. Guillory 21 So. 3d 945 La. 2009
- State v. Lazard 2 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
- State v. Morton 993 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
- State v. Whitehead 980 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
- State v. Guillory 942 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
- State of Louisiana v. Deyon Romain Guillory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
- Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp. 860 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp. 755 So. 2d 226
Opinion text
836 So.2d 9 (2002) Danny SANCHEZ v. GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION, et al. No. 2002-CC-2198. Supreme Court of Louisiana. November 27, 2002. Writ granted. This matter is remanded to the court of appeal for briefing, argument and opinion to address the relationship between the drug testing requirements set forth in La. R.S. 49:1001 et seq. and the employment at-will doctrine. WEIMER, J., concurs with reasons. WEIMER, J., concurring. I concur in the writ grant. In denying the writ, the court of appeal alluded to this court's opinion in Independent Fire Insurance Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181 (La.2/29/00), 755 So.2d 226 , which dealt with expert affidavits. Apparently, the court felt summary judgment was inappropriate because Georgia Gulf did not present an expert affidavit to counter plaintiff's expert affidavit regarding the accuracy of the drug testing. However, it is clear that there is no factual dispute concerning the validity of the drug testing because Georgia Gulf conceded it did not follow the statutory provisions. Quite simply, Georgia Gulf takes the position that even if the test was inaccurate, it had the power to terminate plaintiff at will. Thus, the question of whether the test was accurate or not is not an issue of fact that would preclude the consideration of a motion for summary judgement.