Eddy Oliver, Oscarlene Nixon, and Mildred Goodwin v. Orleans Parish School Board
156 So. 3d 596
La.2014Background
- After Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 29, 2005) and enactment of Act 35, the State transferred most Orleans Parish schools to the Recovery School District (RSD), drastically reducing OPSB funding and positions; OPSB placed ≈7,600 employees on unpaid "disaster leave" and later issued a mass RIF/terminations.
- UTNO (the teachers’ union) and several employees filed multiple lawsuits, grievances, and arbitrations challenging terminations, payment, and the State takeover; many of those matters were resolved by a global settlement in 2007 in which UTNO and OPSB dismissed several suits and arbitrations with prejudice and OPSB agreed to pay $7 million.
- Plaintiffs thereafter pursued a class action (class certified 2008) alleging due process, statutory, contractual, and tort claims against OPSB and State defendants for wrongful termination, failure to recall, and interference with employment rights.
- The district court found OPSB and State jointly liable for due process violations and awarded substantial damages; the Fourth Circuit affirmed liability as to OPSB (failure to create recall list) and held State liable for failing to give statutory "priority consideration" to former OPSB teachers, modifying damages.
- Louisiana Supreme Court granted writs to resolve (1) whether res judicata bars the class action given the UTNO global settlement and prior dismissals, and (2) whether OPSB or the State violated plaintiffs’ due process rights.
- The Supreme Court held res judicata applies (no "exceptional circumstances"), and alternatively found no due process violations by OPSB or the State; judgment reversing and dismissing the class action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the class action | Oliver plaintiffs: UTNO settlement did not include or reserve rights for this class; claims here are different and were not litigated | Defendants: Global Settlement and prior dismissals disposed of the same transaction/occurrence and parties, so res judicata precludes relitigation | Res judicata applies: the class action arises from the same transaction/occurrence as prior suits/arbitrations settled or dismissed with prejudice; no "exceptional circumstances" excuse applies |
| Whether "exceptional circumstances" permit avoiding res judicata | Plaintiffs: exceptional circumstances exist because claims here were not actually litigated, settlement consideration was minimal, and OPSB did not move to dismiss this case in the settlement | Defendants: none of those factors meet the narrow statutory standard for "exceptional circumstances" under La. R.S. 13:4232 | No exceptional circumstances found; statutory exception is narrow and not met by plaintiffs’ arguments |
| Whether OPSB violated due process by failing to create a recall list and denying post-RIF process | Plaintiffs: OPSB policy and La. R.S. 17:81.4 created a protected property interest in recall and grievance rights; failure to create recall list and provide hearings violated procedural due process | OPSB: RIF was lawful given loss of positions after RSD transfer and Katrina; ad hoc call-center process and post-deprivation procedures were adequate; many rehired were former OPSB employees | No due process violation: mass loss of positions made traditional protections impracticable; call-center and rehire procedures were sufficient; plaintiffs offered no proof a specific member would have been rehired absent the alleged defects |
| Whether State/RSD violated due process by failing to give statutory "priority consideration" | Plaintiffs: La. R.S.17:1990(D)(1) entitles former certified teachers to priority consideration; State hired externally and contracted with Teach for America, denying that right | State: statute mandates only "priority consideration," not entitlement to hire; evidence shows RSD used assessment and separate pools for OPSB applicants and considered them | No constitutionally protected property interest in mere "priority consideration"; statute confers discretionary consideration, not a vested employment right; plaintiffs failed to prove denial of consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Burguieres v. Pollingue, 843 So.2d 1049 (La. 2003) (sets five prerequisites for res judicata under amended La. R.S. 13:4231)
- Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., 666 So.2d 624 (La. 1996) (discusses exceptions and equitable considerations for preclusion; reservation of rights context)
- Denham Springs Economic Dev. Dist. v. All Taxpayers, 945 So.2d 665 (La. 2006) (addresses res judicata effect and scope of final judgments)
- Marks v. New Orleans Police Dept., 943 So.2d 1028 (La. 2006) (post-Katrina due process cases: courts may find post-deprivation procedures adequate in extraordinary circumstances)
- Ripley v. Wyoming Medical Ctr., 559 F.3d 1119 (10th Cir. 2009) (discusses requirements for showing a protected property interest under due process)
- Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 359 So.2d 154 (La. 1978) (cited on principles limiting when successive lawsuits are barred by preclusion)