Ms. Masinter is a litigator in the areas of employment, business, and healthcare, including class action defense. She has longstanding experience in trial and appellate practice in both federal and state courts. She has successfully represented private and public entities before multiple federal and state appellate courts.
She handles administrative matters with the EEOC, DOL, and OSHA. She also opines on insurance coverage. Ms. Masinter represents management in injunction proceedings involving Unions, litigates non-compete cases, as well as cases involving state and federal employment laws and regulations. She regularly conducts employer and supervisor training on topics such as avoiding discrimination, harassment and retaliation in the work place, the hiring, discipline and termination of employees, and on various employment laws.
Her clients include hotels, hospitals and other healthcare entities, restaurants, retail and industrial employers and public entities. She not only defends such clients in various employment matters but counsels and advises them on employment and HR policy and procedures and updates and revises employment policies and procedures and employee handbooks and manuals.
She served on the International Association of Defense Counsel, Board from 7/2014 – 7/2017 and was the Board Liaison to the Employment Law, Diversity and Membership Committees, and the Defense Counsel Journal. As an active member of the New Orleans community. Eve serves as the President of the Board for New Orleans Vocal Arts Chorale.
Appellate
Oral argument held November 2, 2021, addressing the scope of federal court removal power under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Elementary and middle school principals filed petition for damages and declarative and injunctive relief against school board, alleging breach of contract, following decision to demote or remove principals. The District Court, 24th District, Jefferson Parish, No. 721-681, DIVISION "C", June B. Darensburg, J., entered partial final judgment confirming demotions and removals.
Writ granted remanding Hepatitis C class action and ordering trial court to address the Defendants' exception of cumulation of actions before ruling on class certification and to revisit exception of improper venue after or in conjunction with a hearing and ruling on class certification.
-
Chauvin v. Sisters of Mercy Health System, St. Louis, Inc., 818 So.2d 833 (La. App. 4th Cir.5/18/2002), writ denied, 825 So.2d 1194 (La. 9/30/2002).
Summary judgment dismissing 1963 blood transfusion recipient's strict liability and negligence claims against hospital for Hepatitis C affirmed by the Louisiana Appellate Court. The Court held that, in 1963, virus' presence in blood was "unavoidably unsafe" under the restatement of the Law of Torts 2d, precluding liability.
-
Arnolie v. Orleans Parish School Board, et al., 48 Fed.Appx. 917, 2002 WL 31115131 (5th Cir. 9/17/2002).
The Fifth Circuit determined that Arnolie's race discrimination claim was not brought timely, two unfavorable evaluations did not amount to adverse employment actions and school Principals were not "employers" as defined by Title VII.
In a race discrimination and retaliation case against Books A Million, Inc., the U.S. Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The case presented an issue of first impression for the Fifth Circuit regarding the timeliness of the filing of a lawsuit under Title VII after the presumed receipt of a notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Looking to the United States Supreme Court and other circuits, the Fifth Circuit adopted a seven-day presumption of receipt, where the date of receipt of the EEOC's notice of right to sue was unknown. Under this presumption, the plaintiff's case against Books A Million was filed one day too late.
-
Douglas v. Dyn McDermott Petroleum Operations Company, 144 F.3d 364 (5th Cir.6/18/1998), rehearing en banc denied, 163 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 12/16/1998).
In-house counsel was terminated and sued claiming race discrimination and retaliation. Jury verdict on retaliation claim only reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court. No protection under Title VII for an in-house attorney who violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and disclosed confidential client documents and information to a third party under the guise of asserting her rights - no protected activity.
The Fifth Circuit held that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of employer where terminated employee alleged constitutional violations but lacked a sufficient property interest as an at-will employee and could have been terminated at any time.
Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration granted under the Federal Arbitration Act and the parallel state law in a race and religious discrimination, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wage claim action removed to Federal Court. Arbitration Agreement signed by Executive Chef at inception of employment agreeing to submit all claims, including wage, tort and discrimination claims, enforced. Court rejects an unconscionable argument, and finds that the FAA preempts a state law that prohibits choice of forum clauses and that the claims fall within the scope of the clear terms of the Arbitration Agreement.
Rule 12 (b)(6) Motion to Dismiss individual supervisory defendants (Board President and Executive Director) in Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) suit filed by employee of retirement facility.
Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss granted in sexual harassment, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and state law whistle-blower case. Allegations did not appropriately satisfy that the conduct at issue was "because of sex" or that the conduct was so severe and pervasive as to constitute hostile environment discrimination under Title VII and La. R.S. 23:301. The state law claims were dismissed for failure to state the necessary elements.
Refusal to hire because of plaintiff's hair color dismissed on summary judgment, as plaintiff did not comply with employer's grooming standards. The court found no basis for constitutional or Title VII race discrimination claims, as no state action was involved and hair color was not a protected class.
