Susan Henry Hebert v. Louisiana Public Defender Board

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

SUSAN HENRY HEBERT NO. 2025 CW 0545
VERSUS

LOUISIANA PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD OCTOBER 1, 2025
In Re: Louisiana Public Defender Board, applying for

supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish
of East Baton Rouge, No. 694429.

BEFORE : THERIOT, LANIER, AND MILLER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court’s March 17, 2025 judgment, which
denied the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant,
Louisiana Public Defender Board (“Board”), is reversed. In
opposition to the Board’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff,
Susan Henry Hebert, alleged she was employed by the Board as set
forth in the Louisiana Public Defender Act. However, it is
undisputed that plaintiff was an assistant district public
defender in East Baton Rouge Parish from 1992 to 2019. Plaintiff’s
role as an assistant district public defender falls within the
jurisdiction of the district public defender pursuant to La. R.S.
15:161, et seg., notwithstanding the Board’s role to allocate state
funds and oversee the various district public defender offices
within the state. While plaintiff maintains she was jointly an
employee of the state and of the Board, La. R.S. 15:147(B)
provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]1l other personnel employed
or who serve under contract in a district office shall not be state
employees.” Furthermore, the statute limits the state employee
classification to “executive staff, secretarial, clerical, and
other personnel directly employed in the operations of the office
[of the state public defender]”.

Legislation is the solemn expression of legislative will, and
therefore, interpretation of a law involves primarily a search for
the Legislature's intent. Montgomery v. St. Tammany Parish Gov't
by and through St. Tammany Parish Council, 2017-1811 (ha. 6/27/18),
319 So.3d 209, 215. When a law is clear and unambiguous and its
application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be
applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in
search of the intent of the Legislature. Id. We find that plaintiff
is not a state employee according to the plain language of
statutory law herein or an employee of the Board pursuant to La.
R.S. 15:147(E). Moreover, plaintiff produced no factual support
sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact or that the Board is not entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is
granted, and plaintiff’s claims against defendant, Louisiana
Public Defender Board, are dismissed with prejudice.

MRT
WIL
SMM

APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
APUTY CLERK OF COURT
' FOR THE COURT