Harris v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. - Dixoncorrectional Inst.

1

HENRY HARRIS v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS - DIXONCORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

No. 2022 CA 1188

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

June 2, 2023

Appealed from the Louisiana State Civil Service Commission Parish of East Baton Rouge • State of Louisiana Civil Service Commission Docket Number 187781 The Honorable David L. Duplantier, Chairman; D. Scott Hughes, Vice-Chairman; John McLure, Kristi Folse, G. Lee Griffin, Ronald M. Carrere, Jr. and Jo Ann Nixon, Presiding Board Members of the Louisiana State Civil Service Commission Martha K. Mansfield, Presiding Referee

Henry Harris Appellant

Holden, Louisiana Plaintiff-Pro Se

Robert R. Rochester, Jr. Counsel for Appellee

Baton Rouge, Louisiana Defendant-Department of Public Safety and Corrections - Dixon Correctional Institute

Before: Welch, Penzato, and Lanier, JJ.

WELCH J.

Plaintiff, Henry Harris, appeals a ruling of the Louisiana State Civil Service Commission affirming the dismissal of his discrimination claims against the Louisiana State Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC") - Dixon Correctional Institute ("DCI"). For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a Master Sergeant ("MSgt.") employed by DPSC-DCI with over seventeen years' experience as a corrections and security officer who has attained permanent status. MSgt. Harris is currently assigned to work at "Compound One D Team," located at the DCI main prison compound, in a security position supervising offenders as they perform janitorial duties. MSgt. Harris was previously assigned to work at DPSC Headquarters in downtown Baton Rouge, which is staffed by DCI, in a night-shift security position that required him to be POST-certified for a specialized security position.^[1] MSgt. Harris worked at DPSC Headquarters from October 16, 2015, until DPSC-DCI notified MSgt. Harris by letter dated November 8, 2021, that his job assignment had been changed from DPSC "Headquarters D Team" to DCI "Compound One D Team," effective November 10, 2021.^[2]

MSgt. Harris initiated an administrative remedy procedure ("ARP") regarding his reassignment. MSgt. Harris's request for ARP was denied at the first step. While his second step request for ARP was pending, MSgt. Harris appealed his reassignment to the Civil Service Commission on November 24, 2021, alleging that it was the result of prohibited discrimination due to his race (white) and biological sex (male).

A Civil Service Commission Referee conducted a public hearing on MSgt. Harris's appeal on February 9, 2022. After reviewing the record, hearing witness testimony, and examining the evidence introduced at the hearing, the Referee denied MSgt. Harris's appeal and issued written reasons for her ruling on March 25, 2022. The Referee upheld DPSC-DCI's action and found that while MSgt. Harris's position was replaced at DPSC Headquarters by a black female, MSgt. Harris failed to prove that his move from DPSC Headquarters to the DC1 main prison compound was based on prohibited discrimination and/or that his replacement was based on prohibited discrimination. The Referee held that DPSC-DCI established a rational business reason for its action, or that the action was "for the betterment of the institution" in allocating its human resources in an effective manner.

MSgt. Harris filed an application for review of the Referee's decision on April 11, 2022. The decision of the Referee became final after the Civil Service Commission denied MSgt. Harris's application for review.^[3] MSgt. Harris now appeals the final decision of the Civil Service Commission.^[4]

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

1. The Referee erred in applying strict scrutiny and standards to pleadings by a.pro se party.

2. The Referee erred by not drawing an adverse presumption against DPSC-DCI for not producing subpoenaed records.

3. The Referee erred by sustaining DPSC-DCI's untimely and inappropriate objections to MSgt. Harris's evidence.

4. The Referee erred by making Findings of Fact that are not supported by the record.

5. The Referee erred by disregarding witness statements that contradicted DPSC-DCI's position.

6. The Referee erred by disregarding the probationary employment status of MSgt. Harris's replacement at DPSC Headquarters.

7. The Referee erred by not applying the Civil Service Commission's "four corners rule" for discrimination claims.

8. The Referee erred by ignoring witness testimony that demonstrated MSgt. Harris's reassignment was not a merit-based decision.

9. The Referee erred by taking judicial notice of a DPSC policy not entered into the record.

10.The Referee erred by taking notice of exhibits in the record that contradicted DPSC-DCI's description of events, specifically, disregarding an impairment in state service created by MSgt. Harris's reassignment and disregarding evidence disputing the testimony of DCI Assistant Warden Keith Turner.

11.The Referee erred by disregarding DPSC-DCI's obligation to fill all positions based on employee's merits.

12.The Referee erred by giving more weight to the evidence of DPSC-DCI than is allowed by law.

13. The Referee erred by not taking proper notice of the holding of Hays v. Louisiana Wild Life & Fisheries Comm'n, 165 So.2d 556, 562 (La.App. 1^stCir.), writs refused. 246 La. 855, 167 So.2d 672 (1964), overruled on other grounds, Reppond v. City of Den ham Springs, 572 So.2d 224, 227 (La.App. 1^st Cir. 1990).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Decisions of Civil Service Commission Referees are subject to the same standard of review as decisions of the Commission itself, which are subject to the same standard of review as a decision of a district court. Ragona v. Louisiana Workforce Comm'n, 2019-0020 (La.App. 1^st Cir. 9/27/19), 287 So.3d 772, 776; Usun v. LSU Health Sciences Center Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 2002-0295, 2002-0296 (La.App. 1^st Cir. 2/14/03), 845 So.2d 491, 494.

Accordingly, factual determinations of the Commission or referee should not be reversed or modified unless clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Ragona, 287 So.3d at 776; Usun, 845 So.2d at 494. However, as to the Civil Service Commission or Referee's interpretation of laws and regulations, this Court performs its traditional plenary functions and applies the error of law standard. Adikema v. Department of Public Safety and Corrections-Office of Youth Development, 2006-1854 (La.App. 1^st Cir. 9/14/07), 971 So.2d 1071, 1074.^[5]

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The civil service provisions in the Louisiana Constitution and the Civil Service Commission's rules are designed to secure adequate protection to career public servants from political discrimination and favoritism. In promoting the merit system, the intent of these laws is to guarantee the security and welfare of public service. See La. Const. Art X, § 1; Sanders v. Dep't of Health and Human Resources, 388 So.2d 768, 771 (La. 1980). To further these goals, and in addition to its primary function as a quasi-judicial body, the Civil Service Commission is empowered to generally supervise the civil service system and to establish rules for that system's administration. Bannister v. Dep't of Streets, 95-0404 (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d 641, 645.^[6] The Civil Service Commission Rules have the effect of law. La. Const. Art. X, § 10(A)(4); Sanders, 388 So.2d at 770; Shortess v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr., 2006-2313 (La.App. 1^st Cir. 9/14/07), 971 So.2d 1051, 1055, writ denied, 2007-2293 (La. 1/25/08), 973 So.2d 761.

It is well established that the Civil Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over classified civil service employer-employee disputes that are employment related, including, but not limited to: the power to adopt rules for regulating employment, promotion, demotion, suspension, reduction in pay, removal, certification, qualifications, political activities, employment conditions, compensation, and disbursements to employees, and other personnel matters and transactions, as well as the power and authority to hear and decide all removal and disciplinary cases. See La. Const. Art. X, §§ 10(A)(1)(a) and 12A; State Civil Service Comm'n v. Dep't of Pub. Safety Dir., 2003-1702 (La. 4/14/04), 873 So.2d 636, 644.

The Civil Service Commission's jurisdiction to hear appeals is limited to two categories of claims: (1) removal or disciplinary claims under La. Const. Art. X, §§ 8(A)^[7] and 12(A),^[8] and (2) discrimination claims under La. Const. Art. X, § 8(B).^[9]Kling v. Louisiana Dep't of Revenue, 2018-1480 (La.App. 1^st Cir. 7/18/19), 281 So.3d 696, 707, writs denied, 2019-01434, 2019-01441 (La. 11/5/19), 281 So.3d 671. For removal/disciplinary claims, "[t]he burden of proof on appeal, as to the facts, shall be on the appointing authority." La. Const. Art. X, § 8(A).

At issue in the instant appeal, however, are MSgt. Harris's discrimination claims. For discrimination claims, "[t]he burden of proof on appeal, as to the facts, shall be on the employee." La. Const. Art. X, § 8(B); Johnson v. Dep't of Health & Hospitals, 2000-0071 (La.App. 1^st Cir. 2/16/01), 808 So.2d 436, 438. (Emphasis added). An employee in a civil service discrimination action must prove his claim by a preponderance of evidence. Muse v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr., Office of Prob. & Parole, 2022-0458 (La.App. 1^st Cir. 11/4/22), 355 So.3d 620, 625. A preponderance of the evidence means evidence which is of greater weight than that which is offered in opposition. Proof is sufficient to constitute a preponderance when, taken as a whole, it shows the fact of causation sought to be proved as more probable than not. Harrell v. Dep't of Health & Hosps., Off. for Citizens with Developmental Disabilities, Pinecrest Supports & Servs. Ctr., 2010-0281, 2010-0282 (...