Jerome Thomas v. New Orleans Public Library

JEROME THOMAS * NO. 2021-CA-0206

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC *
LIBRARY FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ORLEANS
NO. 9020

******
Judge Roland L. Belsome
******
(Court composed of Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge
Rosemary Ledet)

Michael J. Laughlin
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
Donesia D. Turner
SENIOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
Churita H. Hansell
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
Elizabeth Robins
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
Sunni J. LeBeouf
CITY ATTORNEY
1300 Perdido Street
City Hall - Room 5E03
New Orleans, LA 70112

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

AFFIRMED

OCTOBER 6, 2021

RLB
EAL This appeal is taken from the Civil Service Commission’s reversal of Jerome
RML
Thomas’ five-day suspension. For the reasons that follow we affirm.

Facts

At the time of the incidents in question, Mr. Thomas was an Equipment

Operator for the New Orleans Public Library (“NOPL” or “Appointing

Authority”). His job duties included driving trucks to pick up and deliver materials

to and from NOPL branches. Mr. Thomas and a co-worker were normally

assigned to a large truck to perform these job duties. On April 10, 2019, that large

truck was inoperable. Mr. Thomas’ direct supervisor, Brian Henderson, NOPL

Building and Repair Supervisor in its Maintenance Department, requested Mr.

Thomas and his co-worker each drive a smaller truck, splitting the delivery route.

Mr. Thomas objected, insisting that making the deliveries was a two-person job.

In response to the objection, Mr. Thomas and his co-worker were allowed to drive

together in a small truck making deliveries to half of the route. On that date, Mr.

Henderson drove the other small truck and serviced the remaining half of the route.

1

Later, Mr. Henderson reduced to writing a directive declaring that in the

event the large truck is out of commission, Mr. Thomas and his co-worker would

each drive one of the smaller trucks and divide the route. When presented with the

document, Mr. Thomas refused to sign.

Again, on April 17, 2019, the large truck was inoperable. On that day, Mr.

Henderson’s supervisor, Don Banaster, NOPL’s facility manager directed Mr.

Thomas to take the smaller truck and one half of the route. Mr. Thomas declined

to follow Mr. Banaster’s instruction. Thereafter, the incident was brought to the

attention of Interim Director of NOPL, Jessica Styrons. Ms. Styrons issued a

disciplinary letter to Mr. Thomas, suspending him for five working days for

insubordination and neglect of duty. That disciplinary action was appealed by Mr.

Thomas. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) reversed the

suspension. This appeal followed.

Assignment of Error

In this appeal, the NOPL maintains that the Commission abused its

discretion when it reversed Mr. Thomas’ five-day suspension finding that Mr.

Thomas’ actions did not impair the efficient operation of the NOPL.

Discussion

The appointing authority, in this case the NOPL, is charged with the

operation of its department and has the discretion to discipline an employee for

sufficient cause. La. Const. art. X, § 8(A); Lapene v. Department of Police, 11-

0902, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/25/12), 81 So.3d 998, 1000. Legal “cause” to

2

discipline an employee exists when the conduct is prejudicial to the public service

involved or detrimental to its efficient operation. Bannister v. Dep’t of Streets, 95-

0404, p. 8, (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d 641, 647; Walters v. Dep’t of Police City of

New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106, 113 (La.1984). The appointing authority must prove

by a preponderance of the evidence that the complained of conduct impaired the

efficient operation of the public service. La. Const. Art. X, § 8(A); Lapene, 11-

0902, pp. 3-4, 81 So.3d at 1000.

In June, 2019, a hearing was conducted, where the testimony of Mr.

Thomas, Mr. Banaster, Mr. Henderson, and Ms. Styons was presented. All

of the testimony was consistent with the facts that were detailed in Mr.

Thomas’ Notification of Suspension. Mr. Banaster and Mr. Henderson

expressed their concerns regarding the efficiency of having two drivers in

one small truck because it required the truck to return to the main branch to

pick up the deliveries for the remaining half of the route. During Mr.

Thomas’ testimony it was established that he had previously made deliveries

by himself and found it to be too physically taxing. Those previous

experiences are what lead to his objection of doing the job on alone moving

forward. Ultimately, a compromise was reached where when the larger

truck was inoperable, Mr. Thomas and his co-worker would each drive one

of the smaller trucks and follow each other to assist with the deliveries while

servicing the entire route without the need to return to the main branch in

between.

3

Subsequent to the hearing, the hearing examiner issued a report

finding that the appointing authority established sufficient cause for the

discipline issued. The Commission disagreed. After a review of the record,

the Commission recognized the complained of conduct occurred, but also

found that the NOPL failed to prove that the conduct complained of

impaired the efficiency of the public service. The Commission determined

that it was erroneous, under these circumstances, for the NOPL to equate

efficient operation with the speed in which the job could be completed

without taking into account the potential for physical injury. Specifically,

the Commission found Mr. Thomas’ testimony demonstrated that the

deliveries were a two-person job. For those reasons, it found no legal cause

for the discipline and reversed Mr. Thomas’ suspension.

In Mathieu v. New Orleans Public Library, 2009-2746 (La. 10/19/10), 50

So.3d 1259, the Supreme Court discussed the standard for appellate review of the

Commission’s disciplinary decisions stating:

Appellate courts reviewing civil service disciplinary cases are
presented with a multifaceted review function. Initially, deference
should be given to the factual conclusions of the civil service
commission. A reviewing court should apply the clearly wrong or
manifest error rule prescribed generally for appellate review. Then,
the court must evaluate the commission's imposition of a particular
disciplinary action to determine if it is both based on legal cause and
is commensurate with the infraction; the court should not modify the
commission's order unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or characterized
by abuse of discretion. “Arbitrary or capricious” means the absence of
a rational basis for the action taken; “abuse of discretion” generally
results from a conclusion reached capriciously or in an arbitrary
manner.

Mathieu, 2009-2746, pp. 5-6, 50 So. 3d at 1262-63. (citations omitted).

4

The Commission’s findings are sufficiently supported by the

testimony given at the hearing, and are not manifestly erroneous or clearly

wrong. Accordingly, the Commission’s action in reversing Mr. Thomas’

suspension was rationally based and was not an abuse of discretion or

arbitrary and capricious. For these reasons, the Commission’s decision is

affirmed.

AFFIRMED

5