125 So. 3d 1124
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Officer Harris challenged a four-day, two-day-per-violation suspension imposed by NOPD for professionalism and social networking rules.
- NOPD gave notice of the disciplinary hearing on the same day as the hearing, contrary to its own rule requiring five days’ notice.
- At the hearing, Harris admitted comments on a Facebook thread involving Officer Torres; he claimed the banter was off-duty and not targeted at any individual.
- Torres admitted references to Officer Monteleone; Monteleone alleged the comments were unprofessional and made her feel uncomfortable at work.
- Sgt. Anderson investigated, finding the comments unprofessional and that Monteleone felt threatened; the Commission denied Harris’s appeal.
- The court vacated the Commission’s decision, finding due process violated by lack of meaningful notice and inviting reconsideration if proper notice is provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Harris denied due process due to lack of meaningful notice? | Harris argues notice was not meaningful because it occurred on the hearing date. | NOPD contends due process satisfied; notice was given prior to March 8, 2010, per its records. | Yes; notice failed to be meaningful, so due process violation occurred. |
| Should the Commission's decision be upheld or vacated for lack of notice? | Harris argues the decision should be vacated due to invalid notice timing. | NOPD argues the issue was not properly preserved for appeal and that notice was adequate. | Vacate the Commission’s decision; set aside suspension due to violation of due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cure v. Dept. of Police, 964 So.2d 1093 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2007) (review standard; caselaw on good cause and due process)
- Reed v. Department of Police, 967 So.2d 606 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2007) (due process in Civil Service context; notice and hearing rights)
- Moore v. Ware, 839 So.2d 940 (La. 2003) (notice and meaningful opportunity to respond; due process)
- Bell v. Dept. of Health and Human Res., 483 So.2d 945 (La.1986) (due process and property rights framework)
- Loudermill, Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (probative due process requirement for government employment)