Oliver v. Orleans Parish School Board
133 So. 3d 38
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Mass reduction in force of Orleans Parish School Board after Hurricane Katrina; bench trial awarded compensatory damages against OPSB and LDOE jointly and solidarily.
- Act 35 transferred most OPSB schools to Recovery School District, triggering RIF and recall policy implications; Board failed to create a mandatory Recall List per Policy 4118.4.
- LDOE and Board undertook post-Katrina governance steps, including audits, MOU, and external vendor engagement, while implementing charter school conversions.
- Plaintiffs claimed constitutionally protected property rights to recall and damages from wrongful termination due to misapplication of RIF procedures.
- Trial court held Board liable for due process violation and LDOE liable for tortious interference and partnership; on appeal, some theories were reversed.
- Court remanded for recalculation of damages consistent with due process findings and statutory recall requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a due process violation in the RIF recall process? | Plaintiffs: recall policy violated; no mandatory recall list. | Defendants: RIF permissible under statute; recall discretionary under policy. | Yes; due process violation affirmed. |
| Did the State have liability for tortious interference or a partnership with the OPSB? | Plaintiffs: State intentionally interfered with contracts and acted as partner. | Defendants: no unlawful interference; no partnership under MOU. | No; tortious interference and partnership claims reversed. |
| Can res judicata or prescription bar claims or permit relation back for amended petitions? | Plaintiffs: amendments relate back; exceptional circumstances warrant relief from preclusion. | Defendants: res judicata/prescription should apply; amendments prejudicial may bar claims. | Res judicata/prescription defenses denied; amendments related back under Article 1153; exceptional circumstances recognized. |
| What damages are finalmente recoverable and how should they be calculated? | Plaintiffs: five years of back pay/benefits awarded; deductions for unemployment and health coverage inconsistencies addressed. | Defendants: reduce back pay/benefits to reflect deductions and shorter recovery period. | Two years back pay/benefits for OPSB; one additional year for eligible teachers under 17:1990(D)(1) for the State; adjust for deductions; remand for recalculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- 9 to 5 Fashions v. Spurney, 538 So.2d 228 (La. 1989) (five elements for tortious interference of contract)
- Fine v. Regional Transit Auth., 676 So.2d 1134 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1996) (exceptional circumstances may defeat res judicata)
- Rivard v. Petroleum Transport Co., Inc., 663 So.2d 755 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1995) (amendments relating to capacity may relate back under liberal Article 1153)
- Simmons v. Baumer Foods, Inc., 55 So.3d 789 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2010) (exceptional res judicata relief balancing justice)
- Igbokwe v. Moser, 116 So.3d 727 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2013) (res judicata relief under exceptional circumstances recognized)