Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30546/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30546-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 8, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 03-30461

____________

RICKY LANDRY; ET AL

Plaintiffs,

JOSEPH BRAUD; C J LORIO,

Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees,

versus

GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION; ET AL

Defendants,

GEORGIA GULF CORP; GEORGIA GULF SALARIED

EMPLOYERSRETIREMENT PLAN; GEORGIA GULF SAVINGS

AND CAPITAL GROWTH PLAN; GEORGIA GULF WELFARE

BENEFIT PLAN,

Defendants-Appellees-CrossAppellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-1164-B-M2

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DEMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

 Case: 03-30546 Document: 0051384665 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2004
*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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not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.

1

In reaching its conclusion, the district court, assuming that it was a Fifth Circuit decision, mistakenly relied

on Roth v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp., 965 F.2d 862 (10th Cir. 1992). The district court recognized its error and issued

a post-judgment ruling, which made clear that, regardless of Roth, Braud and Lorio did not qualify as common law

employees. Because the district court clarified that Roth was not the basis for its decision, this issue is irrelevant to

our disposition of the appeal.

-2-

PER CURIAM:*

AppellantsJosephBraud (“Braud”) and C.J. Lorio (“Lorio”) appeal the district court’s bench

ruling in favor of Appellee, Georgia Gulf Corporation (“Georgi a Gulf”). Braud and Lorio were

employed by Gulf Coast Engineers (“Gulf Coast”) and Master Maintenance and Construction

(“Master Maintenance”). Gulf Coast, and subsequently Master Maintenance, supplied workers, on

a contract basis, to Georgia Gulf. In 1996, Braud and Lorio filed requests to be included in Georgia

Gulf’s benefits plans, asserting that they were common law employees of Georgia Gulf and, as such,

were entitled to benefits. After administrative review, Georgia Gulf concluded that Braud and Lorio

were not common law employees and, accordingly, not eligible for benefits. Braud and Lorio filed

suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132,

again asserting their common law employee status at Georgia Gulf. After a bench trial, the district

court concluded that Braud and Lorio were not common law employees of Georgia Gulf.1 Braud

and Lorio appeal the district court’s ruling.

On appeal from a bench trial, we review factual determinations for clear error and legal

determinations de novo. Kona Tech. Corp. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 225 F.3d 595, 601 (5th Cir.

2000). The ultimate question of whether an individual qualifies as a common law employee is a

question oflaw. Penn v. Howe-Baker Eng’rs, Inc., 898 F.2d 1096, 1101 (5th Cir. 1990). Braud and

Lorio must establish common law employee status under the factorsset forth inNationwide Mut. Ins.

 Case: 03-30546 Document: 0051384665 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2004
-3-

Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 324-25 (1992).

After hearing testimonyand weighing allthe evidence, the district court concluded that Braud

and Lorio were not common law employees. Our examination of the Darden factors does not compel

us to conclude otherwise. A plurality of the Darden factors, including skill required, right to assign

additional projects, method of payment, role in hiring and paying assistants, employee benefits, and

tax treatment, support the conclusion that Braud and Lorio were not common law employees. Many

of the other factors, including control and direction, location of the work, and discretion in setting

hours of work, are neutral in that they do not favor finding common law employment. We agree that

Braud and Lorio do not meet the Darden standards for common law employment.

Braud and Lorio further assert that Georgia Gulf’s benefit plans will lose their tax exempt

status because Georgia Gulf undercounted contract employees. Braud and Lorio argue that the

“intent [of the benefit plans] to remain tax qualified should militate in favor of finding that plaintiffs

[ ] are common law employees.” However, no precedent conflates tax exempt status with common

law employment under the Darden factors. In both cases relied on by Braud and Lorio, the plaintiffs

were either regular or common law employees. Abraham v. Exxon Corp., 85 F.3d 1126, 1129 (5th

Cir. 1996); Crouch v. Mo-Kan Iron Workers Welfare Fund, 740 F.2d 805, 806-07 (10th Cir. 1984).

In this case, Braud and Lorio are neither regular nor common law employees of Georgia Gulf.

On cross-appeal, Georgia Gulf challenges the district court’s summary judgment rulings on

prescription, laches, and equitable estoppel, and the district court’s decision to dismiss Braud and

Lorio’s state-law claims without prejudice. Georgia Gulf does not state a valid claim under any of

these theories. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

 Case: 03-30546 Document: 0051384665 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/08/2004