Nicol Jackson v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans

NICOL JACKSON * NO. 2024-CA-0801

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
SEWERAGE & WATER *
BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ORLEANS
NO. 9403 C\W 9405
Hearing Examiner Mark Surprenant,
******
Judge Paula A. Brown
******
(Court composed of Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase, Judge
Dale N. Atkins)

Nicol Jackson
3026 Burns Street
Jefferson, LA 70121

PRO SE PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE

Ashley Ian Smith
Darryl Harrison
Yolanda Y. Grinstead
SEWERAGE AND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS
625 St. Joseph Street, Room 201
New Orleans, LA 70165

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

AFFIRMED
APRIL 25, 2025

PAB
TGC
DNA

This is an appeal from a decision rendered by the City of New Orleans Civil

Service Commission (the “Commission”). Appellant, Sewerage and Water Board

of New Orleans (“SWBNO”), seeks to appeal the Commission’s October 3, 2024

decision (the “decision”), which granted the appeal of Appellee, Nicol Jackson

(“Ms. Jackson”), and rescinded Ms. Jackson’s five-day suspension without pay

from her employment at SWBNO.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the

Commission’s decision.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ms. Jackson was employed by SWBNO as a utility plant worker for a period

of approximately four and a half years prior to her resignation in December 2022.

Specifically, she was assigned to the Sycamore Filter Gallery at the Carrollton

Water Treatment Plant (“Sycamore”) located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Ms.

Jackson was a classified permanent or regular employee pursuant to La. Const. art.

X, § 8(A) and the Commission’s rules.2 According to Ms. Jackson, her job

1 Ms. Jackson, proceeding pro se, did not file a brief with this Court.

2 Louisiana Constitution Article X, § 8(A) will be discussed more fully, infra.

New Orleans City Civil Service Rule I § 1.17 defines “classified service” as “all offices and
positions of trust or employment in the city service, except those placed in the unclassified
service by Section 2 of Article X of the Constitution of Louisiana.”

1

responsibilities included water sampling, routine checks around the building every

hour and documentation. On February 3, 2022, Ms. Jackson was scheduled to

work an overnight shift at Sycamore beginning at 11:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00

a.m. on February 4, 2022, together with her coworker, Carol Carey (“Ms. Carey”).

Their direct supervisor, Steven Ware (“Mr. Ware”) was not present at the facility.

The record reflects that Ms. Jackson clocked out at 5:34 a.m. on February 4,

2022, which she did not dispute. When she was interviewed by security and later

testifying before the Commission, Ms. Jackson explained that she was in

possession of a shared vehicle with her spouse and that she left her post so she

could drop him off at his job, which began at 6:00 a.m. Ms. Jackson further

testified that she had informed Ms. Carey that she would be leaving early and that

she believed Ms. Carey was still present at Sycamore when she left; however, the

record reveals that Ms. Carey clocked out at 5:09 a.m., leaving Sycamore

unattended. Additionally, Ms. Jackson explained that because she had a

contentious relationship with Mr. Ware, she did not seek his or any other

supervisor’s permission before leaving.

Shortly thereafter, on February 10, 2022, Ms. Jackson and Ms. Carey were

interviewed by Mr. Ware, Alton DeLarge, III (“Mr. DeLarge”), the Assistant

Water Purification Superintendent for SWBNO, and Charles LeBlanc, Mr. Ware’s

supervisor. As a result of the information gathered at those interviews, Mr.

DeLarge recommended that Ms. Jackson’s employment be terminated. Mr.

New Orleans City Civil Service Rule I § 1.64 defines a “regular employee” as “an employee who
has been appointed to a position in the classified service in accordance with the Law and these
Rules and who has completed the working test period.”

See also La. R.S. 33:2533(18), which provides: “‘Regular employee’ or ‘permanent employee’
means an employee who has been appointed to a position in the classified service in accordance
with this Part after completing his working test period.”

2

DeLarge testified that sometime between March and June of 2022, SWBNO

security conducted an investigation into the incident at the direction of the Human

Resources Department (“HR”). Pursuant to the investigation, HR suggested that a

thirty-day suspension without pay was the more appropriate disciplinary action for

Ms. Jackson. This was ultimately reduced to a recommendation of a five-day

suspension without pay or emoluments.

A letter dated September 22, 2022, was mailed to Ms. Jackson to advise her

of SWBNO’s decision to suspend her for five days. The relevant portions of this

letter informed Ms. Jackson:

The purpose of this letter is to notify you that you are being
suspended from the services of the Sewerage and Water Board of
New Orleans (SWBNO) without pay for five (5) business working
days, effective Monday, October 3-5, and 8-9, 2022, for violating
SWBNO’s Policy #6 Professional Conduct, Section III and CS Rule
IX - Maintaining Standards of Service.

Based on an interview conducted with you, May 17, 2022, and other
subsequent investigations regarding this matter, the SWBNO has
determined . . . that you were unwilling to perform the duties of your
position in a satisfactory manner and that you demonstrated disregard
for standards of service and professionalism in the workplace.
* * *
This suspension is in accordance with SWBNO Policy and Civil
Service (CS) Rules.[3]

3 The letter included the policy and rule Ms. Jackson was determined to have violated:

SWBNO’s Policy #6 Professional Conduct, Section III

Section III Professionalism

While performing their duties for the Board, employees shall conduct themselves
in a professional manner with the utmost concern for the dignity of the individual
with whom they are interacting. Employees shall not unnecessarily inconvenience
or demean an individual or otherwise act in a manner which brings discredit to
the Board.

CS Rule IX, Section 1 - Disciplinary Actions, Maintaining the Standards of
Service

3

In response to receipt of the letter, Ms. Jackson filed three separate appeals: (1) a

disciplinary appeal, docketed as 9403; (2) a discrimination appeal, docketed as

9404; and (3) a “whistleblower” appeal, docketed as 9405. SWBNO filed for

summary dispositions in appeals 9404 and 9405. On January 12, 2023, the

Commission granted summary disposition in favor of SWBNO as to appeal 9404,

finding it had been untimely filed, but allowed appeal 9405 to proceed.4

Eleven months later, a hearing was held to determine the merits of appeals

9403 and 9405. Ms. Jackson appeared pro se along with three other witnesses—

Mr. DeLarge, Kimberly Batiste, SWBNO’s Employee Relations Manager, and

Chad Lavoie, SWBNO’s Water Purification Superintendent. At the conclusion of

the hearing, the hearing examiner informed Ms. Jackson that he would be

preparing a report, which would be submitted to a three-member panel of the

Commission who would ultimately render a decision. The Commission issued its

decision on October 3, 2024, which was consistent with the findings of the hearing

examiner’s report. The Commission held that the disciplinary letter received by

Ms. Jackson failed to comply with the written notice requirements found in Civil

Service Rule IX § 1.3 and La. Const. art. X, § 8(A).5 The Commission also noted

Sec 1.1 When an employee in the classified service is unable or unwilling to
perform the duties of his/her position in a satisfactory manner, or has committed
any act to the prejudice of the service, or has omitted to perform any act it was
his/her duty to perform, or otherwise has become subject to corrective action, the
appointing authority shall take action warranted by the circumstances to maintain
the standards of effective service. The action may include one or more of the
following:

(e) suspension without pay not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) calendar
days.
4 In appeal 9404, the Commission also determined that Ms. Jackson’s assertion of retaliation for

complaints of sex discrimination was not authorized under the Louisiana Constitution or the civil
service rules; therefore, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear that complaint.

4

that in both Ms. Carey’s and Ms. Jackson’s hearings there was discussion and

evidence presented related to potential falsification of records by both employees.

As a result, the Commission rescinded Ms. Jackson’s suspension and ordered

SWBNO to reimburse Ms. Jackson’s lost wages and emoluments for five days.6

This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

In this appeal, SWBNO assigns two errors to the Commission’s decision: (1)

the Commission erred when it granted the appeal by Ms. Jackson, reversing a five-

day suspension and ordering the return of backpay and emoluments; and (2) the

Commission erred when it found SWBNO’s Notice of Discipline to be insufficient

despite there being no violation of Ms. Jackson’s due process rights. Because

these matters are intertwined, we will discuss them together.

Louisiana Constitution Article X, §§ 8 & 12 and Civil Service Rule II, § 4.1

confer the right of appeal to a civil service employee who has been the recipient of

a disciplinary action.7 “On appeal, the appointing authority ‘must prove by a

5 New Orleans City Civil Service Rule IX § 1.3 and La. Const. art. X, § 8(A) will be discussed

more fully, infra.
6 In its decision, the Commission also noted that it did not consider Ms. Jackson’s whistleblower

appeal—appeal 9405—since it had granted her appeal on other grounds.
7 Louisiana Constitution Article 10, § 12(B), pertaining to city civil service commissions,
provides:

Each city commission established by Part I of this Article shall have the exclusive
power and authority to hear and decide all removal and disciplinary cases, with
subpoena power and power to administer oaths. It may appoint a referee to take
testimony, with subpoena power and power to administer oaths to witnesses. The
decision of a commission shall be subject to review on any question of law or fact
upon appeal to the court of appeal wherein the commission is located, upon
application filed with the commission within thirty calendar days after its decision
becomes final.

The City of New Orleans Civil Service Commission was created pursuant to La. Const. art. 10 §
4(B), which establishes:

5

preponderance of the evidence good or lawful cause for taking disciplinary

action.’” Hardy v. Juv. Just. Intervention Ctr., 21-0715, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir.

6/15/22), 342 So.3d 1076, 1079 (quoting Honore’ v. Dep’t. of Pub. Works, 14-

0986, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/29/15), 178 So.3d 1120, 1127). “The Commission

must decide independently from the facts presented whether the appointing

authority had legal cause for taking the disciplinary action and, if so, whether the

punishment imposed is commensurate with the dereliction.” Id. (citation omitted).

“Appellate courts reviewing civil service disciplinary cases are presented with a

multifaceted review function.” Id. at p. 4, 342 So.3d at 1079 (quoting Mathieu v.

New Orleans Pub. Lib., 09-2746, p. 5 (La. 10/19/10), 50 So.3d 1259, 1262).

“Initially, deference should be given to the factual conclusions of the

[Commission].” Id.

“A reviewing court should apply the clearly wrong or manifest error rule

prescribed generally for appellate review.” Id. “Then, the court must evaluate the

[C]ommission’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 [C]ommission’s order unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or

characterized by abuse of discretion.” Id. at p. 4, 342 So.3d 1079-80 (quoting

In New Orleans, the presidents of Dillard University, Loyola University, Tulane
University of Louisiana, and Xavier University, after giving consideration to
representation of all groups, each shall nominate three persons. In addition, the
employees in the classified service of the city of New Orleans shall nominate
three persons in the classified service of the city of New Orleans by means of an
election called for that purpose. The municipal governing authority shall appoint
one member of the commission from the three persons nominated by each
nominating authority.

New Orleans City Civil Service Rule II, § 4.1 provides, in part:

Regular employees in the classified service shall have the right to appeal
disciplinary actions to the Commission, including dismissal, involuntary
retirement, demotion, suspension, fine, reduction in pay, or letters of reprimand as
defined in Rule I.

6

Mathieu, 09-2746, p. 5, 50 So.3d at 1262-63). “‘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.” Id.

(internal citation omitted) (quoting Mathieu, 09-2746, pp. 5-6, 50 So.3d at 1263).

New Orleans City Civil Service Rule IX § 1.3 directs:

In every case of termination, suspension, reduction in pay, letter of
reprimand, or fine of any employee in the classified service or of
involuntary retirement or demotion of the employee, within five (5)
working days of the effective date of the action, the appointing
authority shall furnish the employee and the Personnel Director a
statement in writing of the reasons therefore. The notification also
must advise the employee of the possible right of appeal, which must
be exercised within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the
disciplinary letter.

Similarly, La. Const. art. X, § 8(A) instructs:

No person who has gained permanent status in the classified state or
city service shall be subjected to disciplinary action except for cause
expressed in writing. A classified employee subjected to such
disciplinary action shall have the right of appeal to the appropriate
commission pursuant to Section 12 of this Part. The burden of proof
on appeal, as to the facts, shall be on the appointing authority.

The underlying facts of this case are not in dispute. Ms. Jackson, a permanent

employee of SWBNO, left her post unattended and later received a disciplinary

letter informing her that she would be suspended for five days without pay and

emoluments. Thus, we find the only question confronting this Court is whether the

Commission was arbitrary and capricious or abused its discretion when it

determined that the disciplinary letter did not provide a sufficient reason or notice

for the discipline.

We recognize the gravity of the potential harm that could have followed

from Ms. Jackson’s actions. However, we are compelled to consider the

competing due process issues that exist in disciplinary matters pertaining to any

7

classified permanent civil service employee. This is because “civil service

employment is a property right and in order for an employee to get the benefit of

that right, the notice [of a disciplinary action] ‘must be extended at a meaningful

time and in a meaningful manner.’” Desdunes v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New

Orleans, 24-0424, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/27/25), ___ So.3d ___, ___, 2025 WL

926183, at *5 (quoting Moore v. Ware, 01-3341, p. 13 (La. 2/25/03), 839 So.2d

940, 949).

As it pertains to the disciplinary letter, we note that while the letter included

the SWBNO Policy and Civil Service Rule that Ms. Jackson was alleged to have

violated, it does not elucidate what specific offense or on what specific date she

committed a violation of either of those. We noted previously in this opinion,

there was discussion and evidence presented at the hearing related to potential

falsification of records by Ms. Jackson. This is pivotal because, as the Commission

explained in its decision, hearing officers appointed by the Commission limit

evidence at the hearing to the reasons for discipline contained in the disciplinary

letter. See Montgomery v. Dep’t of Streets, 593 So.2d 1352, 1354 (La. App. 4th

Cir. 1992) (where this Court explained that “the notice requirement established by

[La. Const. art. 10 § 8(A)] is to inform the employee of the charges against him in

detail, and to limit and restrict the [C]ommission hearing to those charges.” (citing

Ellins v. Dep’t of Health, 505 So.2d 74, 76 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1987))).

Furthermore, “‘[t]he purpose of requiring cause expressed in writing is to apprise

the employee in detail of the grounds upon which the dismissal is based and to

limit any subsequent proceedings to the stated grounds.’” Perry v. City of New

Orleans, 11-0901, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/1/12), 104 So.3d 453, 457 (quoting Allen

v. Dep’t of Police, 09-0589, pp. 3-4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/12/09), 25 So.3d 966, 969).

8

See also Matusoff v. Dep’t of Fire, 19-0932, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/20/20), 364

So.3d 240, 244, writ denied, 20-00955 (La. 10/20/20), 303 So.3d 313 (wherein this

Court held that “[t]he Commission was also arbitrary and capricious and abused its

discretion when it upheld Mr. Matusoff’s termination for reasons not contained in

the termination letter.”). Considering the law applied to the facts of the matter

before us, we cannot say that the Commission was arbitrary or capricious or

abused its discretion when it found that the disciplinary letter sent to Ms. Jackson

failed to sufficiently apprise Ms. Jackson of the conduct for which she was being

disciplined.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Commission’s October 3, 2024

decision.

AFFIRMED

9