199 So. 30
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Mederos was a long‑term St. Tammany Parish employee and Personnel Department manager; Parish adopted a home rule charter and personnel policies including an "at‑will" acknowledgment signed by Mederos in 2005.
- New HR directors (Ferrer, then Montgomery) issued reprimands; in August 2013 Montgomery and CFO Gariepy informed Mederos of a decision to terminate, offering retirement in lieu of discharge.
- Mederos initially sought a grievance hearing after a discharge notice, then elected to retire (to secure sick‑leave payout); Parish amended separation to retirement and denied a grievance as unavailable to retirees.
- Mederos sued Parish, Parish President Brister, Gariepy, and Montgomery alleging constructive discharge without due process/§1983 violation, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); she later limited IIED claim to Montgomery and sued some defendants in their individual capacities.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Mederos was an at‑will employee (no property interest), individual defendants not liable under §1983, and IIED claim insufficient as a matter of law.
- Trial court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mederos had a property interest in continued employment (due process/§1983) | Mederos argued charter "just cause" language entitles her to due process and grievance rights | Defendants argued personnel policies and signed acknowledgment establish at‑will status, negating a property interest | Court held employment was at‑will; no protected property interest; due process/§1983 claims fail |
| Whether Parish personnel policy conflicts with charter and is unconstitutional | Mederos claimed the at‑will acknowledgment contradicted charter "just cause" removal language | Defendants pointed to charter provision allowing personnel rules adopted pursuant to charter to define appointment/removal and the signed at‑will acknowledgment | Court held personnel policies valid under charter framework; no constitutional violation |
| Individual liability of Brister, Gariepy, Montgomery under §1983 | Mederos alleged each participated in termination/implemented policy causing deprivation of due process | Defendants argued §1983 imposes personal liability only for officials who personally deprive rights; absent property interest, no §1983 claim | Court held individual §1983 claims fail because no protected property interest existed; vicarious liability inapplicable |
| IIED claim against Montgomery | Mederos claimed repeated supervisory conduct (micromanagement, reprimands, inquiries) rose to extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe distress | Defendants argued supervisory discipline and ordinary workplace conflicts are not extreme or outrageous as required for IIED; some acts occurred after separation | Court held conduct insufficiently extreme or outrageous; IIED claim fails (and IIED based on wrongful discharge is not cognizable for at‑will employees) |
Key Cases Cited
- Quebedeaux v. Dow Chem. Co., 820 So.2d 542 (La. 2002) (at‑will employment absent specific term; statutory exceptions only)
- White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So.2d 1205 (La. 1991) (elements and high standard for IIED; workplace discipline ordinarily not actionable)
- Driscoll v. Stucker, 893 So.2d 32 (La. 2005) (§1983 personal liability requires personal deprivation; respondeat superior not applicable)
- Russell v. Mosquito Control Bd., 941 So.2d 634 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2006) (grievance rights limited where employee elects retirement in lieu of termination)
- Stevenson v. Lavalco, Inc., 669 So.2d 608 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1996) (at‑will employee cannot maintain IIED claim based on wrongful discharge)
- Tolliver v. Concordia Waterworks Dist. No.1, 735 So.2d 680 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1999) (at‑will rule applies to governmental employees not covered by civil service)