Bradley M. Wax Versus Parish of Jefferson, Department of Inspection and Code Enforcement

BRADLEY M. WAX NO. 22-CA-4

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

PARISH OF JEFFERSON, DEPARTMENT OF COURT OF APPEAL
INSPECTION AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON PARISH PERSONNEL BOARD
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 21-9
RUFUS C. HARRIS, III, CHAIRMAN, MICHAEL L. FANTACI, AND
DANIEL R. MARTINY, BOARD MEMBERS PRESIDING

September 28, 2022

FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Jude G. Gravois, and Robert A. Chaisson

AFFIRMED
FHW
JGG
RAC

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
BRADLEY M. WAX
In Proper Person

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION AND CODE
ENFORCEMENT
Teri Black

WICKER, J.

Appellant, Bradley Wax, seeks review of the July 20, 2021 Jefferson Parish

Personnel Board (“the Board”) judgment summarily dismissing his petition to

appeal the termination of his working test period as a “Building Planner I” and the

reinstatement of his regular employment position as a “Pump Station Operator II”

without an evidentiary hearing. For the following reasons, we find that Mr. Wax, a

probationary or working test period employee in his position as a building planner,

failed to sufficiently allege in his petition that the termination of his working test

period was the result of discrimination in accordance with Jefferson Parish

Personnel Board Rule II, Section 4.3. Accordingly, we find that the Board did not

err in dismissing the appeal and we affirm the July 20, 2021 judgment.

The record reflects that, on May 4, 2021, the Director of Jefferson Parish

Department of Inspection and Code Enforcement forwarded to Mr. Wax a

determination letter charging Mr. Wax with “violating Parish and Departmental

work rules.” In the letter, the Director set forth that Mr. Wax had been employed

as a Building Plan Reviewer I with the Department of Inspection and Code

Enforcement since November 7, 2020, and remained in his probationary period.1

The letter further set forth the factual allegations that led to the disciplinary

charges, as follows:

 On April 19, 2021, while having a discussion with your supervisor,
Building Plan Reviewer III Tramone Chetta, regarding a job
assignment you were working on, you became frustrated, stormed out
of the office and shouted profanities that could be heard by the entire
plan review team.

 Several minutes later you were called back to Ms. Chetta’s office to
discuss the incident and your inappropriate behavior. Building
Inspector III Jason Manning was also present at this time.

 On January 20, 2021, a similar outburst happened between you and
your supervisor while working remote. You were working remotely
and while discussing an MRTPD Application for 224 Glenwood

1
The letter stated that Mr. Wax’s working test period had been extended on March 24, 2021.

22-CA-4 1

Drive you became frustrated and abruptly hung up on Ms. Chetta
during the conversation.

The letter concluded that Mr. Wax violated various Parish and departmental work

rules as follows:

 You engaged in prohibited conduct that was unbecoming and reflects
unfavorably on yourself, the Department, and the Parish.

 Your behavior was inappropriate, unprofessional and disruptive. Your
profanity was overheard by several employees as well as a customer
on the phone. As a Jefferson Parish employee, it is expected of you to
behave in a respectful and civil manner at all times.

 While you were frustrated and your outburst may have provided short-
term relief, the long-term consequences could be damaging for your
career. It is critical to communicate effectively with others and to use
proper channels to voice your concerns and dissatisfaction.

The letter advised Mr. Wax that, pursuant to Jefferson Parish Personnel Rule

VII, Section 4.7, his working test period would terminate and he would be

reinstated to his former position of Pump Station Operator II in the Department of

Drainage. The letter set forth that Jefferson Parish Personnel Rule VII, Section 4.7

provides:

A regular employee who has been promoted to a position of a
higher class and who subsequently is removed from that position before
acquiring full civil service status therein, unless the removal was for
disciplinary reasons, shall be reinstated in his former position subject
to the following:

(1) A regular employee who is promoted from a position in one
organization unit to a position of a higher class in another organization
unit and who subsequently is removed during his working test period,
or while serving provisionally or on a conditional basis, shall be
reinstated in his former position in the organization unit from which
promoted if a vacancy exists therein or if the present incumbent is on
promotional leave of absence as provided for in Section 4.7(2), below;
or shall be reinstated in any other vacant position in the same class in
the organization from which promoted; or shall be reinstated to any
other vacant position in the organization unit to which the employee
may have been assigned, or transferred from his former position;
provided he possesses the necessary qualifications to perform the duties
of such position, as determined by the Director. If reinstated as herein
authorized or required, the employee shall not be made to serve a new
working test period. If the employee cannot be reinstated as herein
authorized, the Director shall upon the employee’s written request

22-CA-4 2

submitted within one (1) year from removal, place his name on a
preferred re-employment list for the class of positions from which he
was promoted.

On June 2, 2021, Mr. Wax filed a “Petition of Appeal to Personnel Board,”

seeking to appeal the termination of his working test period as a Building Planner I

and demotion to his original employment position, Pump Station Operator II. In

his petition, Mr. Wax stated that the allegations against him were inaccurate and

exaggerated. Further, Mr. Wax checked the box to indicate that he alleged

discrimination as a reason for his termination. Mr. Wax attached a typed letter

setting forth his allegations concerning discrimination. In his attachment, Mr. Wax

admitted that he used expletive language on one occasion, but alleged that all

employees and supervisors have similarly violated various personnel rules but have

not been terminated or disciplined.

On July 20, 2021, the Personnel Board summarily dismissed Mr. Wax’s

petition for appeal, finding that as a permanent employee but in probationary status

in his position as a building planner, he is not guaranteed an appeal and, further,

that he failed to sufficiently plead his discrimination claim as required under

Jefferson Parish Personnel Rules of Procedure, Rule II, Section 4.4. Mr. Wax

sought reconsideration of the Board’s dismissal of his appeal, which was

subsequently denied. This timely appeal followed.

The Jefferson Parish home rule charter established the Jefferson Parish

Personnel Board and provides that it shall be “policy-making and quasi-judicial in

nature.” Jefferson Parish Charter, Art. 4, Section 4.03(C). In Jefferson Parish,

aggrieved regular public employees may apply to the Personnel Board for a review

of discharge or other disciplinary action to test the reasonableness of that action, at

which time the appointing authority bears the burden of proving legal cause.

Jefferson Parish Personnel Rules, Rule II, Section 4; Maes v. Jefferson Par. Dep’t

22-CA-4 3

of Emergency Mgmt. Pers. Bd., 21-191 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/24/21), 2021 WL

5831350, citing Robinson v. Jefferson Par. Dep’t of Pub. Works-Drainage, 13-474

(La. App. 5 Cir. 12/19/13), 131 So.3d 433, 438; see also Bruno v. Jefferson Par.

Libr. Dep’t, 04-504 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/30/04), 890 So.2d 604, 607.

The Jefferson Parish Personnel Rules of Procedure, Rule II, Section 4.4

states that a probationary or working test period employee “shall have a right of

appeal to the Board; provided, that he specifically alleges that the action appealed

from resulted from discrimination due to race, color, national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, politics, or other specified cause unrelated to merit-employment

considerations.” Rule II, Section 4.3 provides that an employee’s appeal alleging

discrimination must be set forth in detail, and that the petitioner bears the burden of

pleading discrimination with specificity.

On appeal, Mr. Wax contends that because he is a permanent Jefferson

Parish employee, in the position of a Pump Station Operator II, he should be

entitled to an appeal as any other permanent employee. We disagree. We find that

Section 4.4 of the Jefferson Parish Personnel Rules applies to working test period

or probationary employees in their current position who have not yet reached full

civil service status in that position. Mr. Wax has not been terminated as a regular

employee, but rather his working test period has been terminated and his regular

employment position has been reinstated. Because he seeks to appeal the

termination of his working test period or probationary status as a Building Planner

I, we find that Rule 4.4, applicable to working test period or probationary

employees, applies and that he is not guaranteed a right to appeal. We further find

that Mr. Wax failed to allege any acts of discrimination as defined in Jefferson

Parish Personnel Rule 4.4, which requires an employee to set forth with specificity

in which way he or she was discriminated against “due to race, color, national

origin, sex, religion, age, disability, politics, or other specified cause[.]” In his

22-CA-4 4

petition, Mr. Wax failed to allege any adequate discriminatory basis for his

claims.2

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we find that the Personnel Board did not

err in dismissing Mr. Wax’s petition for appeal and we affirm the Board’s July 20,

2021 judgment.

AFFIRMED

2
Mr. Wax further set forth no facts to indicate that amendment to his petition would provide sufficient
factual evidence to support any discrimination claim.

22-CA-4 5

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
INTERIM CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON LINDA M. WISEMAN
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL
PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

22-CA-4
E-NOTIFIED
JEFF PARISH PERSONNEL BOARD (CLERK)
CRYSTAL M. HEINE (APPELLEE)

MAILED
JEFFERSON PARISH PERSONNEL BOARD BRADLEY M. WAX (APPELLANT) TERI BLACK (APPELLEE)
(DISTRICT JUDGE) 20 CAMDEN COURT ATTORNEY AT LAW
200 DERBIGNY STREET MANDEVILLE, LA 70471 200 DERBIGNY STREET
SUITE 3100 SUITE 5200
GRETNA, LA 70053 GRETNA, LA 70053