United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 24, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-31083
Summary Calendar
DARRELL GUILBEAU,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GRASSO PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC.;
UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY;
WADLEIGH INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-1603-A
--------------------
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darrell Guilbeau appeals the summary judgment in favor of the
defendants in his personal injury lawsuit brought under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq. He contends
that this court’s interpretation of the Borrowed Employee Doctrine,
which the district court used to find that Union Pacific Resources
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-31083
-2-
Co. (Union) was immune from suit, runs counter to the legislative
intent Congress’s 1984 amendments to 33 U.S.C. § 904. This court
has previously rejected such an argument. See West v. Kerr-McGee
Corp., 765 F.2d 526, 530 (5th Cir. 1985). One panel of this court
may not overrule another absent intervening en banc or Supreme
Court precedent. Hogue v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 466, 491 (5th Cir.
1997).
Guilbeau also contends that the district court erred in
holding that he was a borrowed employee of Union because the
contract between his employer, Shaw Bagwell, and Union stated that
borrowed-employee status would not arise. Parties may not
contractually prevent a legal status, such as that of a “borrowed
employee,” from arising. See Melancon v. Amoco Prod. Co., 834 F.2d
1238, 1245 (5th Cir. 1988). Guilbeau has not established that he
was not a borrowed employee based upon the “reality at the
worksite.” Id. at 1244; Ruiz v. Shell Oil Co., 413 F.2d 310, 313
(5th Cir. 1969). Guilbeau’s assertion that he has been denied
equal protection by the district court’s refusal to hold Union to
this contractual provision is without merit; he has not established
that he is being treated differently from any “similarly situated”
individual. Mayabb v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 863, 870 (5th Cir.
1999)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Guilbeau contends that the district court erred in dismissing
his claims against Grasso Production Management (Grasso) and
Wadleigh Industries (Wadleigh) on the grounds that the employees of
No. 02-31083
-3-
these companies that were arguably responsible for the injuries
suffered by Guilbeau were also borrowed employees of Union. See 33
U.S.C. § 933(i). He maintains that these companies signed a
contract with Union barring a finding of borrowed-employee status.
Such a provision does not per se bar a finding by the courts of
such a status. Melancon, 834 F.2d at 1245. As Guilbeau has not
challenged the district court’s finding that the “realities of the
workplace” made the Grasso and Wadleigh employees “borrowed
employees” of Union, any such argument is abandoned. See Brinkmann
v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
Guilbeau has not shown that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. See Amburgey
v. Corhart Refractories Corp., 936 F.2d 805, 809 (5th Cir. 1991);
FED. R. CIV. P. 56. Consequently, the judgments of the district
court are AFFIRMED.