155 So. 3d 531
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Officer Clark, a ten-year NOPD veteran with no prior discipline, faced termination after an administrative investigation found two violations: leaving work early and a breach of professionalism.
- Clark’s partner, Officer Hollins, engaged in criminal acts after transporting a detained female subject; Clark did not seek supervisor permission or notify dispatch prior to transport.
- The conduct in question occurred near the end of Clark’s tour; Hollins later committed attempted aggravated rape and kidnapping; Clark was initially charged with kidnapping but dismissed.
- CSC affirmed termination, but the examiner criticized lack of causation between the minor violations and Hollins’ crimes, and suggested a reduced penalty might be appropriate.
- On appeal, the court reversed in part and remanded/reinstated with back pay, holding penalties should reflect Category 1 offenses and that Clark was not responsible for Hollins’ criminal acts.
- The court held the CSC’s termination decision was arbitrary and capricious as to the administrative violations and imposed a 30-day suspension (five days per violation) with reinstatement and back pay, while overturning the professionalism-based suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there good cause to terminate Clark given the link to Hollins’ crime? | Clark argues no causal relation between minor transport violations and Hollins’ criminal acts. | NOPD asserts internal rules were violated and discipline up to termination is warranted. | No; termination vacated for lack of rational link to department operations. |
| Should the penalties be limited to Category 1 offenses rather than termination? | Clark contends the violations fit Category 1, supporting lesser penalties. | NOPD argues termination was authorized under Category 3 for the offenses. | Penalties reduced to five-day suspensions per violation, total 30 days, on Category 1 basis. |
| Is the CSC’s overall punishment arbitrary and capricious and not commensurate with the infraction? | The penalty was too severe and not connected to the misconduct. | Discipline should reflect departmental standards for safeguarding public trust. | CSC’s penalty reversed in part; punishment deemed arbitrary and capricious as to the violations. |
| Was the appeal properly framed under procedural rules and assignments of error? | Clark asserted three errors in his brief; the notice approached different requirements. | Uniform Rules require assignments of error. | Rodrigue-based exception applies; appellant need not strictly assign errors in notice of appeal in civil service matters. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pope v. New Orleans Police Dept., 903 So.2d 1 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2005) (CSC review and standard of review; authority to modify penalties)
- Cure v. Dept. of Police, 964 So.2d 1094 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2007) (burden on appointing authority; relation to efficient operation)
- Marziale v. Dept. of Police, 944 So.2d 760 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2006) (standard for finding dereliction and relationship to operation)
- Rodrigue v. Rodrigue, 591 So.2d 1171 (La.1992) (applies to assignment of errors and civil procedure service; local rules conflict)
- Rocque v. Dept., of Health & Human Resources, Office of Secretary, 505 So.2d 726 (La.1987) (summary dismissal for lack of proper assignments; burden on appellant)
- Stevens v. Department of Police, 789 So.2d 622 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2001) (public trust and discipline in police administration)