Becky Kramer White v. City of Mandeville

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NUMBER 2023 CW 0880

BECKY KRAMER WHITE

VERSUS

CITY OF MANDEVILLE

Judgment Rendered: FEB 2 3 2024

On appeal from the
Twenty -Second Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of St. Tammany
State of Louisiana
Docket Number 2022- 11251

Honorable Vincent J. Lobello, Judge Presiding

C. Theodore Alpaugh, III Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
New Orleans, LA Becky Kramer White

Michael F. Weiner Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee
Covington, LA City of Mandeville

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ.

GUIDRY, C.J.

Becky Kramer White appeals a judgment of the district court, which

affirmed a decision of the Mandeville Police Employees' Civil Service Board to

uphold her termination. For the reasons that follow, we convert the appeal to an

application for supervisory writ and deny the writ.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the early morning hours of March 28, 2017, Ms. White, then a police

officer with the City of Mandeville, was found by the Ponchatoula Police

Department outside of Sophie' s Bar in her marked police vehicle. The

Ponchatoula Police Department informed Ms. White that she could not drive the

police unit home. At the same time, the Ponchatoula Police Department contacted

the Mandeville Police Department, advised that they were with Ms. White, and

requested that someone pick up the police unit and Ms. White because Ms. White

was intoxicated.

Following advisement from the Ponchatoula Police Department, Ms. White

contacted her Chief of Police, Gerald Sticker, and informed him that she needed a

ride home. Ron Ruple, Assistant Chief of Police for the City of Mandeville,

responded to the call from the Ponchatoula Police Department and also headed to

Sophie' s Bar, where Ms. White was located, to retrieve the police unit and to take

Ms. White home.

Subsequently, on March 28, Ms. White was placed on administrative leave

by Chief Sticker pending an internal affairs investigation " and/ or" a disciplinary

hearing. On April 13, 2017, Ms. White was terminated from the police

department. Thereafter, Ms. White appealed her termination to the Civil Service

Board, which was upheld. Ms. White then appealed to the district court, which

also upheld the termination. A judgment was signed by the district court on April

N

28, 2023. Ms. White now appeals that judgment, and assigns the following as

error:

A. The decision of the Board was not made in good faith and for just
cause as the Mandeville Police Department violated La. R.S. 40: 2531
in failing to record the interrogations of Officer White and other law
enforcement officers during the investigation, thus rendering the
discipline an absolute nullity.

B. Officer White' s case was prejudged by Chief Sticker in violation of
her rights under Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470
U. S. 532, 105 S. Ct. 1487, 84 L. Ed. 2d 494 ( 1985).

C. Officer White' s actions did not require discipline which was
excessive and unwarranted.

D. The decision of the Board was not made in good faith and for just
cause as Officer White did not violate the applicable provisions of the
Mandeville Police Department Standard Operating Procedures.

E. The decision of the Board was not made in good faith and for just
cause as the conclusions reached and the penalties imposed were
arbitrary, unreasonable and without any basis in fact or law.

JURISDICTION

The City of Mandeville, the appellee herein, asserts that this court lacks

appellate jurisdiction to review the district court' s decision. We note that appellate

review of decisions by Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Boards is

specifically authorized by La. R.S. 33: 2501( E), and pursuant to that provision, the

district court is vested with appellate jurisdiction.'

In Miazza v. City of Mandeville, 10- 0304 ( La. 5/ 21/ 10), 34 So. 3d 849 ( per

curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that when the legislature has vested

appellate jurisdiction in the district court, as in this case, a court of appeal lacks

appellate jurisdiction, and the matter should be reviewed by converting the appeal

to an application for supervisory writs. The Louisiana Supreme Court gave a

I We also note that the Louisiana Constitution Article V, § 10( A) provides that a court of appeal
has appellate jurisdiction over " all civil matters," and that "[ i] t has supervisory jurisdiction over
cases which arise within its circuit."

3

similar directive to this court in Meiners v. St. Tammany Fire Protection District

4 Board of Commissioners, 10- 0912 ( La. 6/ 25/ 10), 38 So. 3d 359.

Since Miazza and Meiners, this court on numerous occasions has converted

an appeal of a district court judgment conducting appellate review of a decision of

a civil service board to an application for supervisory writs. See In Re Jackson,

19- 0164, p. 2 n.2 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 1/ 2/ 20), _ So. 3d _, _, writ denied, 20-

00202 ( La. 4/ 27/ 20), 295 So. 3d 403 ( and the cases cited therein). We, thus,

convert Ms. White' s appeal to an application for a supervisory writ and review the

merits.2

DISCUSSION

An employee dissatisfied with a civil service board' s decision may appeal to

the district court. See La. R.S. 33: 2501( E). The district court' s review of the

board' s quasi-judicial administrative determination is an exercise of appellate

jurisdiction and does not include a trial de novo. Baton Rouge Police Department

v. O' Malley, 10- 1386, pp. 4- 5 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 25/ 11), 64 So. 3d 773, 776. The

district court' s review is confined to the determination of whether the decision

made by the board was made in good faith for cause. See La. R.S. 33: 2501( E)( 3);

Miller v. City of Gonzales, 15- 1008, p. 5 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 8/ 31/ 16), 202 So. 3d

1114, 1118. Good faith does not occur if the appointing authority acted arbitrarily

or capriciously or as a result of prejudice or political expediency. Arbitrary or

capricious means the lack of rational basis for the action taken. Cause sufficient

for the imposition of discipline means conduct that impairs the efficiency of the

2 Ms. White' s motion for appeal was filed within the thirty -day time period allowed for the filing
of an application for supervisory writs under Rule 4- 3 of the Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.

In addition, we note that in some cases this court has continued to review such district court
judgments under its appellate jurisdiction.

4

public service in which the employee is engaged.' Miller, 15- 1008 at p. 5, 202 So.

3d at 1118.

In addition, district and appellate courts should accord deference to a civil

service board' s factual conclusions and must not overturn them unless they are

manifestly erroneous. Miller, 15- 1008 at p. 5, 202 So. 3d at 1118. As the finder of

fact that personally observed the witnesses, a board' s credibility determinations are

entitled to great weight. Kistler v. City of Denham Springs, 18- 0249, p. 6 ( La.

App. 1st Cir. 2/ 7/ 19), 2019 WL 480117 * 2 ( unpublished).

Pertinent to this matter is La. R.S. 40: 2531, the Police Officer' s Bill of

Rights, which specifies the minimum standards to be followed when a police

employee or law enforcement officer is under investigation and faces possible

disciplinary action, demotion or dismissal. See Miller, 15- 1008 at p. 5, 202 So. 3d

at 1118. Sections B and C of the statute provide in part as follows:

B. Whenever a police employee or law enforcement officer is under

investigation, the following minimum standards shall apply:

1) The police employee or law enforcement officer being investigated
shall be informed, at the commencement of interrogation, of the
nature of the investigation and the identity and authority of the person
conducting such investigation, and at the commencement of any
interrogation, such officer shall be informed as to the identity of all
persons present during such interrogation. The police employee or law
enforcement officer shall be allowed to make notes.

2) Any interrogation of a police employee or law enforcement officer
in connection with an investigation shall be for a reasonable period of
time and shall allow for reasonable periods for the rest and personal
necessities of such police employee or law enforcement officer.

3) All interrogations of any police employee or law enforcement
officer in connection with the investigation shall be recorded in full.
The police employee or law enforcement officer shall not be
prohibited from obtaining a copy of the recording or transcript of the
recording of his statements upon his written request.

4)( a) The police employee or law enforcement officer being
questioned, whether as a target or as a witness in an administrative

3 The appointing authority must prove by a preponderance of evidence that a legal cause existed
for the disciplinary action imposed. Sanders v. City of Mandeville Municipal Police
Department, 18- 0125, p. 7 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 2/ 18), 2018 WL 5792011 * 4 ( unpublished).

5

investigation, shall have the right to be represented by counsel, other
representative, or both, of the police employee or law enforcement
officer' s choice.

C. There shall be no discipline, demotion, dismissal, or adverse action
of any sort taken against a police employee or law enforcement officer
unless the investigation is conducted in accordance with the minimum
standards provided for in this Section. Any discipline, demotion,
dismissal, or adverse action of any sort whatsoever taken against a
police employee or law enforcement officer without complete

compliance with the foregoing minimum standards is an absolute
nullity.

Emphasis added.)

As used in the above statute, " interrogation" contemplates the formal or

systematic questioning of a law enforcement officer. See Andel v. City of

Mandeville, 14- 1415 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 24/ 15), 2015 WL 1882643 * 6

unpublished), writ denied, 15- 1018 ( La. 9/ 11/ 15), 176 So. 3d 1041. Further, as

found in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546, 105 S.

Ct. 14873- 1495, 84 L. Ed. 2d 494 ( 1985), before any employee with permanent

status may be discharged, he is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges

against him, an explanation of his employer' s evidence, and an opportunity to

present his side of the story. To meet the requirements of procedural due process,

an employee' s right to notice and an opportunity to be heard must be extended at a

meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Moore v. Ware, 01- 3341, p. 13 ( La.

2/ 25/ 03), 839 So. 2d 940, 949.

In the matter before us, after hearing from multiple witnesses and

considering numerous exhibits, the Civil Service Board apparently concluded that

there was no violation of Ms. White' s rights and that Ms. White' s termination from

the police department was warranted. Notably, the record reveals that Ponchatoula

Police Department Officers Hutchinson and Sharp clearly believed Ms. White was

intoxicated and had signs of impairment when she was found in her marked police

vehicle at Sophie' s Bar. According to Officer Hutchinson, Ms. White " was not in

any shape to drive." Officer Hutchinson asked Ms. White " if she had somebody

that could come get her."'

According to Officer Sharp, " you could smell the alcohol emanating from

the vehicle, and from [ Ms. White' s] person; once [ Ms. White] exited the vehicle ...

she used the vehicle the whole time to —to balance herself." Officer Sharp stated

that Ms. White' s eyes were " glazed over" and her speech was " slurred." He

contacted the Mandeville Police Department to notify them of Ms. White' s

situation. He also stated that he " briefly" described the situation to Chief Sticker

and Assistant Chief Ruple upon their arrival to the scene.

According to Assistant Chief Ruple, there was no investigation of the

incident because " everything was based upon the observation that [ he and Chief

Sticker] saw at the scene." Assistant Chief Ruple explained that Ms. White was

not in a state" for formal questioning at the time of the incident, and that there

was no formal questioning of Ms. White on the morning after. According to

Assistant Chief Ruple, at the time of the incident Ms. White was " obviously highly

intoxicated" and smelled of alcohol. Assistant Chief Ruple stated that Ms. White

nearly " collapsed" when exiting the Ponchatoula police vehicle and that he had to

assist her. He explained that his conversation with Ms. White from Sophie' s Bar

to Ms. White' s home was primarily about directions to Ms. White' s home. When

he reached Ms. White' s home and got inside he " could see alcohol remnants from

bottles and things of that nature."' At the police department, later that morning,

Assistant Chief Ruple explained that he gave Ms. White her personal property

from the police vehicle and described to her what had occurred, which she claimed

Officer Hutchinson believed Ms. White denied driving the vehicle because " at that point she
didn' t want to get arrested for DWI."

5 Chief Sticker also testified that he observed alcohol bottles in Ms. White' s home.

7

not to remember. He also told her that she should go home and that she would be

notified where things stood after this." 6

Ms. White had little recollection of the event. According to Ms. White, she

had a few drinks with friends on the evening of March 27. Later, around 11: 00

p.m. as she was preparing for bed, she took a prescribed antidepressant, Zoloft, and

does not remember anything that occurred afterwards. Ms. White did not

remember leaving the house to go to Sophie' s bar. According to Ms. White, the

entire incident was a reaction to her Zoloft medication.'

Chief Sticker testified that there was no formal investigation in connection

with Ms. White' s actions, and that prior to the pre -disciplinary hearing he had not

made up his mind about the discipline he would impose upon Ms. White.' Chief

Sticker testified that he decided to terminate Ms. White because of the " seriousness

of the offense." The Chief stated:

I concluded that what she did that night was willful.... She made a
willful choice to go out that night and drink. She made a willful
choice to take whatever medicine she took, disregarding whatever
warning may have been on that label. ... But I also took into
consideration that, not only did she put herself in danger that night,
she was driving a marked police car. You' re expected to respond....
If she would have run across a situation in progress ... she was ill-
equipped to handle that ... And the way she was driving, it put her at
risk, it put the motoring public at risk. It was especially egregious, I
found, to the citizens, because they pay us their taxpayer dollars. It' s
their car on the road. And you have a police officer, off-duty,

intoxicated, driving it to a bar.

6 Assistant Chief Ruple testified that he accessed the in -car cameras in Ms. White' s police unit
and reviewed Ms. White' s actions from the time she left her residence to arriving at Sophie' s
Bar. He also stated that he spoke to the Ponchatoula police officers on the scene and that they
told him what occurred.

7 Ms. White also testified that when she met with Assistant Chief Ruple on the morning of March
28 he questioned her about the previous evening.

8 In addition to Chief Sticker' s testimony, statements made by the Chief at Ms. White' s pre -
disciplinary hearing and in Ms. White' s termination letter further evidence that Chief Sticker
considered Ms. White' s side of the story before terminating her.

8

According to Chief Sticker, he made the decision to terminate Ms. White in

the best interest of the police department and " because it did bring [ the] department

in disrepute, involving them in a lot of bad press."

Eugene Schwilke, PhD, who testified as an expert on the effects of drugs and

alcohol, noted that Pfizer' advises a person not to drink alcohol while taking

Zoloft. " The emphasis is, do not. ... So obviously, Pfizer has an issue with

people taking Zoloft and drinking," stated Dr. Schwilke. According to Dr.

Schwilke, the effects of Zoloft could be exacerbated if a person were taking Zoloft,

in addition to alcohol. Dr. Schwilke further stated that when taken as prescribed

Zoloft does not cause blackouts or should not cause a person to be unsteady on
their feet.

Having reviewed the record of the proceedings before the Civil Service

Board, we cannot say that we find error in its conclusions or those of the district

court.
The evidence in the record supports both a finding that there was no " formal

or systematic questioning" or " interrogation" of Ms. White in connection with an

investigation, and that the Ponchatoula police officers were not interrogated in

connection with an investigation of Ms. White. Therefore, we cannot say that the

conversations between Assistant Chief Ruple and Ms. White, or the Assistant

Chief' s conversations with the other officers, required recording under the Police

Officer' s Bill of Rights.

Similarly, where the record shows that a pre -disciplinary hearing was held,

Ms. White was given an opportunity to respond to the charges against her, and the

Chief testified that the outcome of the hearing was not predetermined, we cannot

conclude that the Civil Service Board was clearly wrong in failing to find that Ms.

White' s rights were violated or that due process was not afforded to her.

9 Pfizer is the manufacturer of the medication Zoloft.

Z

Contrary to Ms. White' s contentions, our review of the record supports such

a finding by the Civil Service Board that, in violation of departmental policy, Ms.

White was intoxicated and under the influence of alcohol in the early morning

hours of March 28, 2017, when she was found by police officers in her marked

police unit at Sophie' s Bar. Ms. White' s operation of the Mandeville police unit

while intoxicated put both Ms. White and the public in danger. Her actions also

exposed the City to media coverage that could have impacted the public' s trust, as

well as potential liability. Based on the evidence in the record, we find no error in

the conclusion of the Civil Service Board that the termination of Ms. White was in

good faith and for cause. We thus find that the assignments of error lack merit.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, we convert the appeal to an application

for supervisory writ and deny the same, hereby affirming the district court' s April

28, 2023 judgment. All costs of this writ are assessed to Becky Kramer White.

APPEAL CONVERTED TO APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY
WRIT; WRIT DENIED.

10