72 So. 3d 467
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jones, a NOPD officer, was disciplined for tardiness on 4 April 2009; a DI-2 was issued for late arrival and Jones refused to sign it, resulting in a second violation.
- She testified she arrived between 7:35 and 7:45 a.m., notified the desk, and that COMSTAT attendance was misapplied as a consequence of lateness.
- Hayes, her supervisor, testified lateness of 1 hour 20 minutes impaired service and justified disciplinary options including DI-2, payroll adjustments, or annual leave.
- McCabe testified that attendance at COMSTAT could be offered as a make-up for tardiness but did not order Jones to attend and she refused COMSTAT; DI-2 was issued after she refused to sign.
- The CSC found Jones's tardiness unexcused and her refusal to sign the DI-2 without justification; it affirmed discipline for cause.
- On appeal, Jones argued Police Officers’ Bill of Rights violations; the court limited its review to whether discipline for cause was proven and struck exhibits not admitted into CSC record.
- The court affirmed the CSC, noting it would not address unraised Bill of Rights claims raised for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSC properly affirmed discipline for cause | Jones asserts lack of good cause due to late explanation | NOPD maintains tardiness impaired operations and DI-2 justified | Affirmed: discipline for cause upheld |
| Whether Jones was denied rights under the Police Officers' Bill of Rights | asserted rights violated by lack of counsel during statement | no CSC consideration of Bill of Rights issue; not raised below | Not addressed on appeal; issue waived for first time review |
| Whether exhibits attached to Jones' brief could be considered | exhibits support her arguments | evidence not properly admitted cannot be considered | Struck: only the disciplinary letter admitted; attached exhibits not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Pope v. New Orleans Police Dept., 903 So. 2d 1 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2005) (appointing authority bears burden to prove disciplined for cause)
- Cure v. Dept. of Police, 964 So. 2d 1093 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2007) (clear and substantial relation to efficient operation required)
- Marziale v. Dept. of Police, 944 So.2d 760 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2006) (good cause and proportionality in disciplinary actions)
- Cornelius v. Dept. of Police, 981 So.2d 720 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2008) (civil service protections against discipline without cause)
- Fihlman v. New Orleans Police Dept., 797 So.2d 783 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2001) (ensures proper consideration of civil service protections)
- Ritter v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 20 So.3d 540 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2009) (evidence not officially admitted cannot be considered)
- Graubarth v. French Market Corp., 970 So.2d 660 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2007) (new issues raised on appeal often not addressed)
- Williams v. Dept. of Police, 996 So.2d 1142 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2008) (police procedure familiarity with disciplinary processes)