Brandon Morris v. Graphic Packaging Intl, L.L.C.

Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 12, 2020
No. 19-30940
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Brandon Morris,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Graphic Packaging International, L.L.C.,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:19-CV-266
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
While working for Graphic Packaging International (“GPI”),
Brandon Morris was injured on the job site and later sued GPI in tort. GPI
contends that, since Morris is a statutory employee, workers’ compensation
provides Morris’s only remedy. The district court granted summary
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
No. 19-30940
judgment for GPI and denied Morris’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. Morris appeals and we affirm.
This court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, applying the same standards as the district court. DePree v. Saunders,
588 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate if no
genuine dispute of material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
In January 2018, GPI, a paper manufacturer, and Morris’s employer,
ML Smith, Jr., L.L.C. (“ML Smith”) entered into a written contract
(“Purchase Order”). The Purchase Order contained a document outlining
terms and conditions. The terms and conditions form stated the requirement
that ML Smith carry workers’ compensation insurance and that GPI would
be the statutory employer of ML Smith’s employees. Id.
A month later, Morris was assembling a new black liquor reclaim tank
when he stepped in brown or black fluid on the ground. Morris sustained
chemical burns on both his feet and has received benefits from Zurich
American Insurance Company (“Zurich”), the insurer that issued ML
Smith’s workers’ compensation policy.
A little less than a year after his injuries, Morris filed suit against GPI
in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. GPI
removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The district
court granted summary judgment for GPI and denied Morris’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment. Morris timely appealed. Zurich was an
intervenor at the district court level, but has not appealed the ruling to this
court.
Under Louisiana law, workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy
in situations such as this one if the employee is a statutory employee. LA.
2
Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
No. 19-30940
STAT. ANN. § 23:1061 (2019). The terms of statutory employment are set
out by Louisiana Revised Statutes § 23:1061(A)(3):
[A] statutory employer relationship shall not exist
between the principal and the contractor's employees, whether
they are direct employees or statutory employees, unless there
is a written contract between the principal and a contractor
which is the employee's immediate employer or his statutory
employer, which recognizes the principal as a statutory
employer. When the contract recognizes a statutory employer
relationship, there shall be a rebuttable presumption of a
statutory employer relationship between the principal and the
contractor's employees, whether direct or statutory
employees. This presumption may be overcome only by
showing that the work is not an integral part of or essential to
the ability of the principal to generate that individual principal's
goods, products, or services.
La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061 (2019).
In short, a worker is a statutory employee of the principal (here, GPI)
if the employment relationship is formed with a written contract, and the
employee is hired to perform services that are an integral part of the
employer’s business.
In this appeal, Morris contends that an unsigned writing – here, a
Purchase Order with attached terms and conditions – cannot qualify as a
written contract as required under Louisiana law for statutory employees.
Morris also contends that the construction of a reclaim tank is not an integral
part of GPI’s business, even though the use of the reclaim tank is an integral
part of GPI’s business. We reject both claims.
I. The Purchase Order satisfies the written contract requirement.
“Except for intentional acts, workers’ compensation is the exclusive
remedy for work-related injuries and illnesses.” Dugan v. Waste Mgmt., Inc.,
3
Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
No. 19-30940
45-407-CA (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/23/10); 41 So. 3d 1263, 1266 (citing La. Stat.
Ann. § 23:1032). This statute applies if the worker is a statutory employee
of a principal.1 La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061. Under this statute, a statutory
employment relationship exists when a principal hires a contractor, in
conformance with § 23:1061, to perform services that are a part of the
principal's business and a written contract exists between the principal and
contractor that recognizes the principal as a statutory employer. La. Stat.
Ann. § 23:1061.
The Purchase Order is a “written contract” as required by Louisiana
Revised Statutes 23:1061(A)(3) because it contains a clear written expression
that GPI was Morris’s statutory employer. The Purchase Order states, in
relevant part, “SECTION 13: STATUTORY EMPLOYMENT: If services
are to be performed at [GPI's] facilities in the state of Louisiana, it is agreed
that pursuant to the provisions of Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1061(A)(3),
that it is the intent and agreement of the parties hereto that the relationship
of … [GPI] to the direct employees and the statutory employees of [ML
Smith] (contractor) be that of a statutory employer.” This court has before
recognized that this identical language was sufficient to recognize a statutory
employment relationship. Nielsen v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., Civil
Action No. 09-1757, 2011 WL 2462496 (W.D. La. June 17, 2011) aff'd, 469 F.
App'x 305 (5th Cir. 2012). 2
1
A principal is defined as “any person who undertakes to execute any work which
is a part of his trade, business, or occupation in which he was engaged at the time of the
injury, or which he had contracted to perform and contracts with any person for the
execution thereof.” La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1032.
2
Although Nielsen is an unpublished opinion and is not therefore binding on this
court, it is useful evidence of this court’s treatment of this issue because of the factual
similarity.
4
Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
No. 19-30940
While Morris contends that the contract is invalid because it was
unsigned, the plain text of the Louisiana statute in question does not require
a signed writing, it just requires a “written contract.” La. Stat. Ann.
§ 23:1061 (A)(3). Under Louisiana law, the offer and acceptance may be oral,
and acceptance can be through performance, as it was here. La. Civ.
Code Ann. art. 1927 (“Unless the law prescribes a certain formality for the
intended contract, offer and acceptance may be made orally, in writing, or by
action or inaction that under the circumstances is clearly indicative of
consent.”). Further, the validity of the written contract was not at issue
because, per the opening paragraph of the Purchase Order, performance
constitutes acceptance. (“Acknowledgement, shipment or performance of
any part of this Purchase Order will constitute acceptance by Seller of all
Terms and Conditions hereof, including all documents incorporated herein
by reference”).
Therefore, while the Purchase Order was unsigned, it was a written
contract that was accepted through performance and is a binding contract.
II. Morris’s work in the construction of the reclaim tanks is an
integral and essential part of GPI’s business.
Once a principal has shown that a written contract has provided for a
statutory employment relationship, there is a rebuttable presumption of
statutory employment that can be overcome only by showing that the work is
not an “integral part of or essential to the ability of the principal to generate
that individual principal's goods, products, or services.” La. Stat. Ann.
§ 23:1061 (A)(3); see also Everitt v. Rubicon, Incorporated, 2004-1988 (La. App.
1 Cir. 6/14/06); 938 So. 2d 1032 (“[T]he legislature has now shifted the
burden of proof to the employee to rebut the presumption of a statutory
employer relationship where a written contract recognizes such a
relationship, and the statute specifies the burden the employee must meet in
order to rebut the presumption.”). Morris contends that he can meet his
5
Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
No. 19-30940
burden to show that the work he was performing was not an integral part of
or essential to the ability of GPI to generate its goods, products, and services.
La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061 (A)(3); Jackson v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 2004-0026,
(La.App. 1 Cir. 12/17/04); 897 So. 2d 684, 688, writ denied, 2005-0156
(La.3/24/05), 896 So.2d1042.
According to an affidavit sworn by a GPI manufacturing manager,
black liquor reclaim tanks, such as the one Morris was working on, are an
“integral part of and essential to GPI’s ability to produce its paperboard
products from both a continuous process perspective, as well as from an
economic and environmental perspective.” Morris responds that, while the
use of the tanks is an integral part of GPI’s business, the construction of those
tanks is not an integral part of GPI’s business. Not so. Louisiana appellate
courts have recognized that the statutory employer test is liberal and
expansive, and for example held that the construction of a new fractionation
plant was an essential part of a chemical company’s business. See Jackson v.
St. Paul Ins. Co., 2004-0026, (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/17/04); 897 So. 2d 684, 688-
89, writ denied, 2005-0156 (La.3/24/05), 896 So. 2d 1042 (“[T]he legislature
has specifically rejected a restrictive analysis in favor of a more liberal
interpretation of the words ‘integral’ and ‘essential.’”); Applegarth v.
Transamerican Ref. Corp., 00-1547 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/28/01), 781 So. 2d 804,
807, writ denied, 2001-0834 (La. 5/11/01), 792 So. 2d 738 (After
“[c]onsidering the history of the legislative responses to the restriction of
statutory employee status by the courts, we conclude that [the legislature]
intended the section to apply to new construction” in at least some
circumstances, and therefore constructing “a retaining wall around the oil
tanks and laying cement forms for the installation of pipe racks is essential to
the ability of the refinery to generate its goods, products, or services.”)
Since it is undisputed that the use of black liquor tanks is an integral
and essential part of GPI’s business, and Louisiana courts have classified the
6
Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
No. 19-30940
new construction of an integral part of a company’s business as itself an
integral part of the company’s business, we agree with the district court’s
conclusion that the construction of black liquor reclaim tanks is an integral
part of GPI’s business. See La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061 (A)(3). Morris has
not met his burden to rebut the written contract establishing a statutory
employer relationship, and consequently, GPI was Morris’s statutory
employer.
III. Conclusion
As Morris’s statutory employer, GPI is immune from Morris’s tort
claims and his exclusive remedy is workers’ compensation. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
7