Civil Service Commission for the City of Opelousas v. City of Opelousas

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-701

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FOR
THE CITY OF OPELOUSAS

VERSUS

CITY OF OPELOUSAS, THROUGH ITS
MAYOR, DONALD CRAVINS, SR., AND
THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, THE
BOARD OF ALDERMEN, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, DOCKET NO. 11-C-5722-A
HONORABLE JAMES P. DOHERTY, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Jimmie C. Peters, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Eric LaFleur
J. Gregory Vidrine
Mahtook & LaFleur
Post Office Box 617
Ville Platte, Louisiana 70586
(337) 363-6211
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
The City of Opelousas, Roger Brown, George Gennuso,
Delores Guillory, and Eva Noel

Christine Mire Matherne
Williams & Associates Law Firm
Post Office Box 54024
Lafayette, Louisiana 70505-4024
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Roger Brown, George Gennuso,
Delores Guillory, and Eva Noel

Jerry J. Falgoust
Falgoust, Caviness, & Bienvenu, LLP
Post Office Box 1450
Opelousas, Louisiana 70571-1450
(337) 942-5812
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Civil Service Commission for the City of Opelousas

GENOVESE, Judge.

Defendants, Roger Brown, George Gennuso, Delores Guillory, and Eva

Noel, appeal the trial court‟s ruling relative to their status as classified employees

subject to the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission for the City of

Opelousas. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In December 2011, the Civil Service Commission for the City of Opelousas

(Civil Service Commission) filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment naming as

defendants: (1) the City of Opelousas through its Mayor, Donald Cravins, Sr.;

(2) the City‟s seven aldermen; and, (3) thirty-three1 of the City‟s employees. The

Civil Service Commission alleged that the employees were hired in violation of its

rules and regulations. Its petition requested: (1) a declaration from the trial court

“that all personnel of the CITY OF OPELOUSAS are members of the classified

service of the CITY OF OPELOUSAS except those which are specifically

excluded by the August 12, 1961 Opelousas Ordinance and/or Article 10, Section 2

of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution;” (2) a declaration from the City of Opelousas

“under what authority [the employees] were hired in an unclassified position;”

(3) a declaration from the trial court “as to what positions, if any, are considered a

head of a „principal executive department‟ and are to be excluded from the

Opelousas Civil Service;” and, (4) an order from the trial court for “those

employees hired as unclassified to apply for their positions with the CIVIL

SERVICE COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF OPELOUSAS.”

1
Originally, twenty-nine employees were named as defendants. Four additional
employees were added as defendants via an amended petition filed in March 2012.

A two-day bench trial was held, after which the trial court took the matter

under advisement and issued Reasons for Judgment. On April 9, 2013, the trial

court signed a judgment declaring that seventeen2 of the thirty-three employees

named as defendants, including Roger Brown, George Gennuso, Delores Guillory,

and Eva Noel, were classified employees subject to the rules and regulations of the

Civil Service Commission for the City of Opelousas. This appeal by the four

above-mentioned Defendants followed.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Appellants assert one assignment of error: the trial court “erred in finding

that [they] were not properly employed within the City‟s unclassified service.”

Roger Brown contends that “as the head of a principal executive department

unanimously established by the Board of Aldermen at their January 2011 regular

meeting, [he] falls into the unclassified service as dictated by Article 10, § 2 of the

1974 Constitution.” It is George Gennuso‟s argument that he “serves as the

principal assistant and/or confidential position holder to a principal executive

department head (Roger Brown), and, as such, he falls into the unclassified service

as dictated by Article 10, § 2 of the 1974 Constitution.” Delores Guillory argues

that she “holds a confidential position to a principal executive department head

(Melanie LeBouef - Director of the Department of Tourism and Culture), and, as

such, she falls into the unclassified service as dictated by Article 10, § 2 of the

1974 Constitution.” It is Eva Noel‟s contention “that, as the head of a principal

executive department unanimously established by the Board of Aldermen at their

2
Eight of the thirty-three employees named as defendants were dismissed from these
proceedings because they were no longer employed by the City of Opelousas at the time of trial.

2

January 2011 regular meeting, [she] falls into the unclassified service as dictated

by Article 10, § 2 of the 1974 Constitution.”

DISCUSSION

At the trial of this matter, the trial court was presented with testimony from

numerous individuals as well as documentary evidence. This is a manifest error

case. It is clear from reviewing the record, including the written Reasons for

Judgment, that the trial court thoroughly analyzed the evidence before it. We see

no reason to replicate the trial court‟s detailed analysis, and we find no manifest

error in its ruling. Thus, we affirm and adopt the trial court‟s well-reasoned

opinion as our own. Its opinion is incorporated by reference as Appendix “A” to

this opinion.

DECREE

For the reasons articulated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court,

adopt its opinion as our own, and incorporate its opinion by reference. Costs of

this appeal are assessed against Roger Brown, George Gennuso, Delores Guillory,

and Eva Noel.

AFFIRMED.

3

APPENDIX “A”