Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 23:963 (2026)

No person shall coerce or require any of his employees to deal with or purchase any article of food, clothing or merchandise of any kind whatsoever from any person, or exclude from work, punish, or blacklist any of his employees for their failure to deal with another or to purchase any article of food, clothing or merchandise whatsoever from another or at any place whatsoever. Nothing contained in this Section shall apply to the sale and purchase of uniforms.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§963. Purchase of merchandise from particular seller; coercion prohibited; penalty

No person shall coerce or require any of his employees to deal with or purchase any article of food, clothing or merchandise of any kind whatsoever from any person, or exclude from work, punish, or blacklist any of his employees for their failure to deal with another or to purchase any article of food, clothing or merchandise whatsoever from another or at any place whatsoever. Nothing contained in this Section shall apply to the sale and purchase of uniforms.

Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not less than thirty days nor more than ninety days, or both.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1988–2009 · leading case: In Re Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc., Emp. Practices Litig., 662 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (N.D. Ind. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc., Emp. Practices Litig., 662 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (N.D. Ind. 2009). · cites it 3× “” La.Rev. Stat. § 23:963. FedEx contends that this claim isn’t founded on whether it had the right to dictate that contractors use certain vendors, but rather, whether FedEx actually coerced them.”

Ballaron v. Equitable Shipyards, Inc., 521 So. 2d 481 (La. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “Appellants further contend that their discharge by Equitable violated R.S. 23:963 which prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who refuse to "deal with another" as a condition of their employment.”

Portie v. Devall Towing & Boat Serv., Inc., 634 So. 2d 1324 (La. Ct. App. 1994). “); purchase of merchandise from a particular seller (R.S. 23:963); discharge for testifying at a labor investigation (R.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.