Callie Abshire v. City of Kaplan

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: November 5, 2014
• Docket: CA-0014-0533
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 14-533

CALLIE ABSHIRE

VERSUS

CITY OF KAPLAN

**********

APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 97740 HONORABLE JULES DAVIS EDWARDS, DISTRICT JUDGE

BILLY HOWARD EZELL JUDGE

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, John D. Saunders, and Billy Howard Ezell, Judges.

AFFIRMED. James Isaac Funderburk Funderburk & Herpin P. O. Box 1030 Abbeville, LA 70511-1030 (337) 893-8140 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: City of Kaplan

Daniel M. Landry, III P. O. Box 3784 Lafayette, LA 70502 (337) 237-7135 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Callie Abshire EZELL, Judge.

Callie Abshire appeals the decision of the trial court below finding that the

Kaplan Civil Service Board (CSB) acted in good faith and with just cause in

terminating her employment. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of

the trial court.

Ms. Abshire was Kaplan’s Civil Service Board Director from August of

1998 until August of 2013. After the election of Mayor Kirk Champagne in 2010,

she began having conflicts with the Mayor’s office. On July 23, 2013, she was

charged with several violations of the Civil Service Act, including: an

unwillingness to perform her duties, deliberate omission of an act that was her duty

to perform, commission of acts detrimental to her department or public interest,

and insubordination. Specifically, she was charged with: 1) fostering an

atmosphere of distrust and tension between her office and the City Administration;

2) making childish gestures and facial expressions at administration presentations;

3) repeatedly violating a directive from the CSB to limit contact with City Hall to

email or through other CSB members; 4) publishing an email containing

deliberately untrue or misleading statements concerning the Mayor; and 5)

intentionally or negligently telling board members of incorrect dates for CSB

meetings.

The CSB held a hearing on Ms. Abshire’s charges and voted unanimously to

fire her. She ultimately appealed that decision to the trial court below, who found

that the decision of the CSB was made in good faith and with just cause. From that

decision, Ms. Abshire appeals. Ms. Abshire asserts one assignment of error on appeal, that the trial court

erred in finding the CSB had just cause to fire her and acted in good faith. We

disagree.

In Bannister v. Department of Streets, 95-404, p. 8 (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d

641, 647, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated:

In civil service disciplinary cases, an appellate court is presented with a multifaceted review function. Walters v. Department of Police of the City of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106 (La.1984). First, as in other civil matters, deference will be given to the factual conclusions of the Commission. Id.; Newman [v. Department of Fire, 425 So.2d 753 (La.1983)]. Hence, in deciding whether to affirm the Commission’s factual findings, a reviewing court should apply the clearly wrong or manifest error rule prescribed generally for appellate review. Walters, supra; see also Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978). . . .

Second, in evaluating the Commission’s determination as to whether the disciplinary action is both based on legal cause and commensurate with the infraction, the court should not modify the Commission’s order unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. Walters, supra; Newman, supra; cf. La. R.S. 49:964. “Arbitrary or capricious” means the absence of a rational basis for the action taken. Shields v. City of Shreveport, 579 So.2d 961 (La.1991), citing Bicknell v. United States, 422 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.1970).

Thus, in determining whether an action of the CSB was based on legal cause

and in good faith, a reviewing court should not modify an order of the CSB unless

such order is arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of

discretion. Lange v. Orleans Levee Dist., 10-140 (La. 11/30/10), 56 So.3d

925. An administrative agency’s determination is “capricious” when it has no

substantial evidence to support it; it is “arbitrary” when the evidence has been

disregarded or not given the proper weight. Marsellus v. Dept. of Pub. Safety and

Corrs., 04-860 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/23/05), 923 So.2d 656. Deference must also be

given to the factual conclusions of the Commission. Bannister, 666 So.2d 641.

2 In our review of the record before this court, we cannot find that the trial

court committed manifest error in its determination that the CSB acted in good

faith and with just cause. Ms. Abshire herself admitted to making the

unprofessional gestures she was accused of. She had no sufficient explanation for

that behavior. She further admitted to knowingly violating the directive that she

not go to City Hall. Her response to the charges repeated, but did not counter the

charge that she created or contributed to an air of tension and mistrust between her

office and City Hall. The trial court further noted in its reasons for judgment that

the CSB members who voted for her termination could directly observe this

behavior or tension in their dealings with Ms. Abshire. There is clearly a

reasonable factual basis for the findings of the trial court below. Accordingly,

those findings cannot be manifest error. Ms. Abshire’s assignment of error is

without merit.

For the above reasons, the decision of the trial court is hereby affirmed.

Costs of this appeal are hereby assessed against Ms. Abshire.

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal. Rule 2–16.3.