Background - Independence, LA closed its town fire department in 2012; Tangipahoa Parish Rural Fire Protection District No. 2 (the District) contracted with the Independence Volunteer Fire Department (Volunteer Department) to provide services and allocated tax funds to it. - An unsigned written contract between the District and ten volunteer departments (including the Independence Volunteer Department) required District ratification of hires, reimbursement of payroll only for ratified positions, compliance with District policies, District authority to investigate complaints, and District approval for purchases over $10,000. - David Maurer, formerly a town fire employee, became fire chief of the Volunteer Department; his paychecks came from the Volunteer Department but the District allocated funds and the District approved hires and exerted control over policies and approvals. - After repeated disputes with Dennis Crocker (District Administrator), the Volunteer Department voted to terminate Maurer; evidence indicates District involvement in the process and a letter to the District urging Maurer’s removal. - Maurer sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of procedural due process, arguing he had a property interest in his job as a civil service employee; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing he had no property interest. - The district court excluded the unsigned contract from the summary-judgment record and granted summary judgment for defendants; the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding the contract was properly considered and material factual disputes exist about whether Maurer held a civil-service position. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---| | Whether Maurer had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment | Maurer contends he was in a civil service position (or otherwise had a contract-based property interest), so he was entitled to notice and a hearing before termination | Defendants contend Maurer was not a civil service employee and thus had no property interest protected by due process | Reversed summary judgment; factual disputes about civil-service status preclude resolution as a matter of law and require further proceedings | | Whether the unsigned contract between District and Volunteer Department could be considered on summary judgment | Maurer relied on the contract to show District authority over selection, supervision, and discharge | District argued the unsigned/unauthenticated contract was inadmissible and properly excluded | Fifth Circuit held Rule 56 permits consideration of evidence capable of being presented in admissible form; exclusion was abuse of discretion and contract may be considered | | Proper legal test for civil-service status under Louisiana law | Maurer: apply the statutory test in La. R.S. § 33:2541 focusing on the District's right to select, appoint, supervise, and discharge | District: district court applied general Louisiana employer/employee test (Harrington) and emphasized payment and control factors | Court held the statutory § 33:2541 test controls; factual disputes under that statute remain for a factfinder | | Whether the District’s actual exercise of authority is required to establish civil-service status | Maurer: the contract grants the District rights sufficient to make the position civil service regardless of how often rights were exercised | District: points to limited or budgetary-only exercises of control to argue lack of civil-service status | Court held the statutory inquiry looks to the right to select/appoint/supervise/discharge (not whether rights were actually exercised); rights on the contract create factual disputes | ### Key Cases Cited Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (procedural due process requires property interest created by state law or contract) Curtis v. M & S Petroleum, Inc., 174 F.3d 661 (5th Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion review for summary-judgment evidentiary rulings) LSR Consulting, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 835 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 2016) (Rule 56 permits consideration of materials capable of being presented in admissible form) Lee v. Offshore Logistical & Transp., LLC, 859 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2017) (summary judgment evidence need not be authenticated to be considered if capable of admission at trial) Brown v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 705 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2013) (erroneous view of law can constitute abuse of discretion) Jones v. La. Bd. of Sup’rs of Univ. of La. Sys., 809 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2015) (example of recognized property interest in public employment)