Sabrina Richardson v. New Orleans Police Department
2024-CA-0556
| La. Ct. App. | Mar 31, 2025Background:
- Sabrina Richardson was promoted to probationary Police Captain in the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) in November 2021 while also serving as commanding officer of the Public Integrity Bureau (PIB).
- Richardson was investigated for misconduct related to overlapping secondary employment and NOPD shifts, payroll violations, and leaving paid details early without authorization.
- She was suspended for 119 days and demoted back to Police Lieutenant in October 2022 after being found to have committed multiple policy violations.
- Richardson appealed her demotion to the Civil Service Commission, alleging it was based on sex discrimination rather than discipline for misconduct.
- The Commission denied her discrimination appeal, finding she failed to demonstrate that similarly situated male employees were treated more favorably.
- Richardson appealed that decision to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex Discrimination in Demotion | Richardson argued her demotion was due to sex discrimination and that similarly situated males (Allen and Guillard) were promoted despite similar violations. | NOPD countered that Richardson's role and additional misconduct set her apart from comparators, thus justifying the demotion. | Court held Richardson failed to show similarly situated males treated more favorably; demotion upheld. |
| Prima Facie Discrimination Standard | Asserted she made a prima facie case (protected class, qualified, adverse action, comparators). | Argued Richardson did not establish similarly situated comparators due to differences in roles and specific misconduct. | Court found Richardson met first three prongs, but not fourth. |
| Commission's Factual Findings | Claimed Commission erred in weighing evidence and failing to find discrimination. | Asserted Commission's factual findings were reasonable and supported by evidence. | Court found no manifest error or abuse of discretion by Commission. |
| Arbitrary or Capricious Decision | Argued Commission's decision was arbitrary or capricious. | Argued the decision was rational, based on credible evidence of job differences and conduct. | Court ruled Commission acted within its discretion; decision affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. New Orleans Police Dep’t, 829 So.2d 511 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2002) (manifest error standard for reviewing commission factual findings)
- Walters v. Dep’t of Police of City of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106 (La. 1984) (standard for reviewing commission’s factual findings and orders)
- Bannister v. Dep’t of Streets, 666 So.2d 641 (La. 1996) (definition of arbitrary or capricious action by commissions)
- Guidry v. Glazer’s Distrib. of La., Inc., 49 So.3d 586 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2010) (elements of a prima facie case of employment discrimination)
- Lee v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard for similarly situated employee in discrimination analysis)