Greemon v. City of Bossier City
65 So. 3d 1263
La.2011Background
- Greemon, a paramedic for Bossier City Fire Dept., evaluated a detainee in custody who later died; Greemon was terminated following an internal investigation.
- Greemon appealed the civil service decision to the Bossier City Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board.
- During the hearing, one member moved to go into executive session and another seconded; no formal vote on the motion is reflected, but the presiding member directed an executive session close to the public.
- After executive session, the Board publicly voted 3–2 to uphold Greemon's termination, finding just cause and good faith by the City.
- Greemon alleged in district court that the Board violated the Open Meetings Law and that the process prejudiced him; the district court remanded for further proceedings and voided the Board’s decision, prompting appellate review.
- The court ultimately held Greemon’s Open Meetings Law claim was untimely under the 60-day period and that the initial pleading did not plead a timely OM claim, so summary judgment relief was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of OM claim | Greemon pled timely within 60 days of action. | OM claim timeliness barred; first OM pleading was late. | OM claim untimely; district court erred in granting summary judgment. |
| Whether initial pleading adequacy under OM law | Initial pleading described ‘closed executive session’ as violation. | Initial pleading did not state a material OM violation; not enough facts. | Initial pleading insufficient to state an OM claim within the timeliness window. |
| Whether executive session meeting was unlawful due to voting | Failure to vote to enter/exit executive session violated OM law. | Executive session permitted for certain matters; voting mechanics not shown as unlawful in pleading. | Court did not reach on the merits; timeliness precludes reaching this issue. |
| Whether OM claim can be cumulated with civil service appeal | OM rights implicated within civil service proceedings; cumulative claim allowed. | OM claim independently subject to 60-day limit; not properly pled alongside civil service appeal. | Court treated as untimely OM claim; remanded for consistent proceedings. |
| Remand and disposition if OM claim is untimely | Void the Board’s action if OM violation occurs. | Proceed with civil service review; OM issue unresolved due to timeliness. | Because OM claim was untimely, reverse summary judgment; remand for further civil service proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Powell, 401 So.2d 453 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1981) (60-day limit to void actions under OM law)
- Montalvo v. Sondes, 637 So.2d 127 (La. 1994) (fact-pleading standard; material facts define claims)
- Schroeder v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 591 So.2d 342 (La.1991) (summary judgment standard; de novo review on appeal)
- Cox v. W.M. Heroman & Co., Inc., 298 So.2d 848 (La.1974) (abandonment of theory-of-the-case pleading; focus on facts)