Monier v. St. Charles Parish School Board, 65 So. 3d 731

Monier, a non-tenured special education teacher, was suspended for two days without pay after an incident in which a student with disabilities allegedly experienced excessive force.
An administrative investigation by the Board concluded Plaintiff used excessive force; Treuting reported this to the Principal and recommended discipline; the Superintendent approved a two-day suspension.
Plaintiff disputed the process and asserted rights under the Teacher Bill of Rights, attempting to invoke due process protections.
Plaintiff requested extended sick leave in Oct 2008 for anxiety; leave was granted, and Plaintiff resigned Jan 5, 2009.
Plaintiff filed suit Aug 3, 2009 seeking repayment of the two days’ pay, damages for unsafe environment, and other relief; Board moved for summary judgment in Dec 2009.
Trial court granted summary judgment, finding no private remedy under the Teacher Bill of Rights and that due process did not require a hearing for a two-day suspension; judgment affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether genuine issues exist about the two-day suspension	Monier argues facts show disputed issues regarding suspension and pay loss.	Board contends no due process right to a hearing for a two-day suspension; facts show an adequate process.	No genuine issue; entitlement to repayment of pay denied.
Whether safe environment claim under 17:416.18 creates a private remedy	Plaintiff asserts right to a safe teaching environment and damages for stress.	Teacher Bill of Rights provides no private cause of action or remedy for such claims.	No private remedy under 17:416.18; assignments lack merit.
Whether damages issue is viable for a non-tenured teacher	Plaintiff argues he is entitled to damages for lack of due process and stress.	Non-tenured status means no property interest requiring process; no damages action exists under statute.	Damages claim not viable; affirmed.
Whether summary judgment was improper given evidentiary record	Board offered unsworn statements; Board failed to provide sworn deposition evidence.	Unsworn statements suffice under Article 966; plaintiff's affidavit irrelevant to due process issue.	Summary judgment proper; pleadings and admitted facts establish no genuine issues.

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (due process depends on protected interests; not fixed content)
Frye v. Louisiana State University Medical Center, 584 So.2d 259 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1991) (private interest of pay not always requiring notice/hearing)
Wilson v. Jefferson Parish Department of Parks & Recreation, 668 So.2d 1167 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1996) (due process requirements adapt to circumstances)
Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La. 2004) (summary judgment standard in Louisiana appellate review)
Murphy v. L&L Marine Transp., Inc., 695 So.2d 1045 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1997) (non-documentary materials not weighty in summary judgment)
Voltolina v. St. Tammany Fire Dist., 970 So.2d 1015 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2007) (statutory remedies considerations in teacher rights)
State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. and Development v. Central Gulf Towing, L.L.C., 971 So.2d 1163 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment burden shifting and standard)
Murphy v. L&L Marine Transp., Inc., 695 So.2d 1045 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1997) (evidence quality required for summary judgment)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process framework cited for hearing standards)