261 So. 3d 7
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Gerald Melancon, Amite City police officer (hired 2008), was found to have used department NCIC/Thinkstream access to run criminal-history checks on 13 people, including colleagues and a council member.
- Department investigation and a Louisiana State Police audit revealed the unauthorized queries; Melancon repeatedly denied running some checks during interviews.
- Chief Trabona recommended termination for unauthorized checks and lying; City Council unanimously voted to fire Melancon (Sept. 1, 2009).
- Melancon sued under the Louisiana Whistleblower Statute (La. R.S. 23:967), claiming he reported departmental illegalities to supervisors and external bodies (MCC, FBI) and that those disclosures motivated his firing; he also asserted a captain told him to investigate.
- At a bench trial, after Melancon presented his case, the Town moved for involuntary dismissal; the trial court granted the motion finding Melancon failed to prove LWS elements by a preponderance.
- On appeal the court affirmed, concluding Melancon showed no proof that he advised the employer of an actual violation of law or that his FBI involvement motivated the firing; instead the record supported termination for unauthorized checks and lying.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Melancon proved a LWS violation (employee advised employer of an actual violation of law and disclosed it) | Melancon says he reported corruption internally (chiefs/captain) and to MCC/FBI, so his disclosures were protected. | Town says Melancon did not advise the employer of specific unlawful acts; no documentary proof of departmental law violations. | Held: Melancon failed to prove an actual violation was advised to the employer; element not met. |
| Whether Melancon’s termination was retaliatory for whistleblowing | Melancon contends firing was motivated by his disclosures and FBI involvement. | Town contends termination was for unauthorized database use and repeated lies, not for any disclosures. | Held: Evidence shows termination was for unauthorized checks and lying; not motivated by whistleblowing. |
| Whether Melancon was authorized/ordered to run checks or to lie about them | Melancon claims a captain’s comment and MCC contact authorized investigation and that he was protecting an investigation. | Town and witnesses (captain, MCC, FBI) state no authorization was given to run checks or to deny/lie. | Held: No credible evidence of authorization; testimony and FBI affidavit contradict Melancon. |
| Whether involuntary dismissal was proper after plaintiff's case-in-chief | Melancon argues he presented sufficient proof to survive dismissal. | Town argues plaintiff failed to meet preponderance standard; dismissal appropriate under La. C.C.P. art. 1672(B). | Held: Trial court not manifestly erroneous; involuntary dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Capitol City Family Health Center, 928 So.2d 129 (bench-trial/involuntary dismissal standard; preponderance and treatment of uncontroverted testimony)
- Broussard v. Voorhies, 970 So.2d 1038 (manifest error review of involuntary dismissal)
- Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- Puig v. Greater New Orleans Expressway Comm'n, 772 So.2d 842 (scope/purpose of Louisiana Whistleblower Statute)
- Hale v. Touro Infirmary, 886 So.2d 1210 (elements required to prove a LWS claim)