Portrait of Joanne Rinardo

Joanne Rinardo

Emeritus

Portrait of Joanne Rinardo
  • Overview
  • Insights
  • Events
  • News

Joanne Rinardo defends clients in employment and constitutional litigation. She is best known for her successful representation in cases involving Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family Medical Leave Act, as well as general employment claims. She has recently defended a client against dozens of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state agency charges in a tri-state area over a two-year period with no findings of “cause” issued against the client.

Joanne has a Ph.D. in education and has taught graduate courses in education law at the University of New Orleans. In her education law practice, she has represented independent grammar, middle and high schools as well as a large state university in all types of employment and student-related matters. She provides consultation on employment practices and training on various topics, and she develops employment policies, drafts handbooks for staff and students, and assists schools with employment and due process issues. She also assists clients with developing best practices, policies and procedures to avoid claims.

Joanne was employed by the New Orleans Public Schools (NOPS) for almost 20 years. As an administrator for NOPS, she supervised approximately 75 employees and twice served on the management bargaining team that addressed the concerns of thousands of union employees.

    • Loyola University New Orleans (J.D., 1995)
    • University of New Orleans (Ph.D., 1998)
    • University of New Orleans (M.Ed., 1978)
    • Louisiana State University (B.A., 1973)
    • Loyola University New Orleans (J.D., 1995)
    • University of New Orleans (Ph.D., 1998)
    • University of New Orleans (M.Ed., 1978)
    • Louisiana State University (B.A., 1973)
    • Louisiana
    • Louisiana
  • American Bar Association

    • Labor and Employment Law Section

    Federal Bar Association

    Louisiana Bar Foundation, Fellow

    Louisiana State Bar Association

    New Orleans Bar Association

    Association for Women Attorneys
    Board Member, 1999-2004

    New Orleans Chamber of Commerce

    American Bar Association

    • Labor and Employment Law Section

    Federal Bar Association

    Louisiana Bar Foundation, Fellow

    Louisiana State Bar Association

    New Orleans Bar Association

    Association for Women Attorneys
    Board Member, 1999-2004

    New Orleans Chamber of Commerce

    • Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America©

    • Warren E. Mouledoux Award for Ethics, Loyola School of Law

    • Highest grade in both Ethics and Educational Law

    • Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America©

    • Warren E. Mouledoux Award for Ethics, Loyola School of Law

    • Highest grade in both Ethics and Educational Law

  • UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY

    Executive Board

    CYPRESS ACADEMY

    Board Member, Vice President

    UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY

    Executive Board

    CYPRESS ACADEMY

    Board Member, Vice President

  • Sims v. Town of Haughton

    After obtaining a $1,300 judgment on a motion to compel and deposing the plaintiff, he agreed to dismiss all claims in exchange for Haughton not executing the judgment.

    Beans v. Fenton

    After winning several motions to compel, this case was settled for about two percent of the original demand.

    Campbell v. Nationwide
    Joanne assisted Nationwide’s in-house counsel. The state claim against the company for unfair employment practices has been dismissed.

    Vaughn v. Frankly Legal

    Procured a “no cause” determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    Bryant v. Town of Washington

    After discussions with the plaintiff's counsel, he withdrew. The judge dismissed all federal and state claims against the defendants before summary judgment was filed.

    Seals v. Superior Options

    Joanne won a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice and dismissed the plaintiff’s state claims without prejudice.

    Qadhafi v. Habitat for Humanity

    Obtained a “no cause” determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    Jones .v Habitat for Humanity

    In an Americans with Disabilities Act case, Joanne obtained a dismissal with prejudice of all claims after a summary judgment status conference.

    Gilley v. Lowes’

    Joanne had all claims against the third-party defendants dismissed on summary judgment.

    Gonterman v. Best Western

    After Joanne deposed the plaintiff regarding the inflation of her claims, the case settled for 20 percent of the original demand.
     

    Sims v. Town of Haughton

    After obtaining a $1,300 judgment on a motion to compel and deposing the plaintiff, he agreed to dismiss all claims in exchange for Haughton not executing the judgment.

    Beans v. Fenton

    After winning several motions to compel, this case was settled for about two percent of the original demand.

    Campbell v. Nationwide
    Joanne assisted Nationwide’s in-house counsel. The state claim against the company for unfair employment practices has been dismissed.

    Vaughn v. Frankly Legal

    Procured a “no cause” determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    Bryant v. Town of Washington

    After discussions with the plaintiff's counsel, he withdrew. The judge dismissed all federal and state claims against the defendants before summary judgment was filed.

    Seals v. Superior Options

    Joanne won a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice and dismissed the plaintiff’s state claims without prejudice.

    Qadhafi v. Habitat for Humanity

    Obtained a “no cause” determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    Jones .v Habitat for Humanity

    In an Americans with Disabilities Act case, Joanne obtained a dismissal with prejudice of all claims after a summary judgment status conference.

    Gilley v. Lowes’

    Joanne had all claims against the third-party defendants dismissed on summary judgment.

    Gonterman v. Best Western

    After Joanne deposed the plaintiff regarding the inflation of her claims, the case settled for 20 percent of the original demand.
     

Firm Highlights

  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.
  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).