Louisiana And Mississippi Litigation Attorneys
  1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Expertise
  4.  » Government

Governmental Liability

Claims against governmental entities often involve politically sensitive legal issues that have statewide, or nationwide, impacts. Our attorneys have mastered the nuanced and complicated procedural law regarding immunity and abstention as well as the substantive federal and constitutional law regarding equal protection and due process.

The following cases are representative of our record of success defending claims against governmental entities:

  • Civil rights action against state police: Our attorneys obtained defense jury verdict on behalf of four Louisiana State Police troopers in a federal civil rights action. The plaintiff filed suit in federal court in New Orleans alleging that he was falsely stopped, handcuffed, subjected to excessive force and arrested in the French Quarter in October 2015 in violation of his Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. State troopers arrested the plaintiff after he kicked an officer twice.
  • Disability discrimination litigation: Our attorneys secured a defense verdict in a disability discrimination lawsuit filed against the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (our client) and the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, alleging that probation officers violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to provide certified sign language interpreters for probation meetings. The jury determined that the plaintiff did in fact understand the conditions of probation, that plaintiff’s probation violation was not inadvertent, and that the probation officers had worked diligently to assist plaintiff in understanding and complying with the terms of his probation.
  • Discrimination, equal protection and due process litigation: Our attorneys obtained summary judgment dismissal for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals in a lawsuit by 50 Non-Emergency Medical Transportation providers alleging discrimination as well as equal protection and due process violations. Plaintiffs claimed that they were paid less than Non-Emergency Ambulance providers even though, according to the plaintiffs, both providers performed identical services. The court disagreed, finding that Non-Emergency Medical Transportation providers do not provide medical services during transport, while Non-Emergency Ambulance providers do.