183 So. 3d 550
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Mary E. Roper was the appointed Parish Attorney for East Baton Rouge under a Plan of Government provision authorizing appointment "for an indefinite term."
- The Metro Council delivered written notice proposing termination, citing improper disclosure of proprietary information, breach of fiduciary duty, and loss of confidence, and set a hearing date and right to counsel.
- Roper sued for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a declaration that she could be removed only pursuant to La. Const. art. X §§ 24–25 (i.e., only for felony/malfeasance or by impeachment) and that she was entitled to expanded pre-termination procedures (discovery, depositions).
- The trial court initially issued a temporary restraining order but then sustained the Metro Council’s exception of no cause of action as to injunctive relief and later dismissed Roper’s declaratory-judgment petition with prejudice.
- The trial court held, and the appellate court affirmed, that Roper—an appointee serving an indefinite term—was not a "public officer" entitled to removal only under the constitutional impeachment/suit provisions and that the Metro Council’s § 2.13 removal procedures were adequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parish Attorney (appointed for an indefinite term) is a "public officer" removable only under La. Const. art. X §§ 24–25 | Roper: As Parish Attorney she is a municipal public officer who can be removed only for felony/malfeasance or by impeachment/suit under the Constitution | Metro Council: Roper is a subordinate appointee for an indefinite term and not a constitutional "public officer," so local removal rules apply | Held: Not a constitutional "public officer;" Metro Council may remove under its § 2.13 procedures |
| Whether Metro Council must provide "cause" beyond its § 2.13 notice and hearing (e.g., a specific statutory cause or expanded discovery) | Roper: She must be afforded "sufficient grounds" and due-process measures (discovery, depositions) before removal | Metro Council: Provided written notice of grounds, hearing date, and counsel rights; not required to provide extensive discovery | Held: § 2.13 procedures (written grounds, ≥10-day notice, hearing, right to counsel) are sufficient; no expanded discovery required |
| Whether trial court erred in denying declaratory relief | Roper: Declaratory judgment needed to resolve scope of removal protections | Metro Council: Local plan governs removal of subordinate appointees; declaratory relief not warranted | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion in dismissing petition with prejudice |
| Applicable standard of review for declaratory-judgment denial | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Held: Abuse-of-discretion standard governs appellate review of declaratory-judgment rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Harvey v. Stanly, 138 So. 845 (La. 1931) (constitutional removal provisions not intended for subordinate local appointees)
- Williams v. Bd. of Trustees for Employees’ Retirement Sys. of Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 653 So.2d 1337 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1995) (treated parish attorney as public officer for retirement statute purposes; later vacated by La. Sup. Ct.)
- Spooner v. West Baton Rouge Parish School Bd., 526 So.2d 851 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1988) (jurisprudence addressing elected/definite-term officers in removal context)
- La. Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions v. Roberts, 779 So.2d 726 (La. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard for declaratory relief decisions)