City of New Orleans v. Civil Service Commission

Louisiana Court of Appeal

City of New Orleans v. Civil Service Commission

454 So. 2d 1134, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9289

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 3, 1984

DocketNo. CA-1608

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 454 So. 2d 1134 (City of New Orleans v. Civil Service Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of New Orleans v. Civil Service Commission, 454 So. 2d 1134, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9289 (La. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAMS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision by the trial court awarding plaintiff, The City of New Orleans [“City”] injunctive relief.

The City sued The Civil Service Commission [“Commission”] and its director, John Belsom, alleging that the Commission had effected a change in the Civil Service program that required approval by the City Council of New Orleans [“Council”], and that this approval had not been obtained. The City petitioned for injunctive relief to prevent the Commission from enforcing these changes. The Commission argued that the changes were in nomenclature only and did not affect any type of pay plan nor had a budget purpose.

The Commission is empowered with broad and general rule-making powers. La. Const. Art. X, 10 (1974); La.R.S. 33:2400, et seq. If, however, a rule affects wages or hours it must be approved by the Council. See Civil Service Commission Rules, Rule IV, Section 1.2; Home Rule Charter of City of New Orleans, Article 3, Section 3-118.

The change complained of by the City was the re-classification of employees in what had been the Administrative Analyst Series to a newly created series, the Management Analyst Series. A new job specification was created for the Management Analyst Series, which was different from the Administrative Analyst Series. In four instances, there was a change in salary for employees who were changed from the Administrative Analyst Series to the Management Analyst Series.

The City has argued that based on the testimony presented at the trial below, it is clear that the decision to re-classify the employees was caused by concern that federal funding for the positions might disappear, and these employees would be terminated. This is disputed by the Commission. Although only four of the positions that were re-classified received a different pay plan, the Constitution clearly mandates that approval by the council was required for the change.

We point out that simply changing the name of the positions does not appear to have been enough to require Council approval; neither would the changing of the job classification requirements. Because, however, some employees would receive different compensation under the new plan, the decision of the trial court enjoining the Commission from promulgating these rules was correct.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WILLIAMS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision by the trial court awarding plaintiff, The City of New Orleans [“City”] injunctive relief.

The City sued The Civil Service Commission [“Commission”] and its director, John Belsom, alleging that the Commission had effected a change in the Civil Service program that required approval by the City Council of New Orleans [“Council”], and that this approval had not been obtained. The City petitioned for injunctive relief to prevent the Commission from enforcing these changes. The Commission argued that the changes were in nomenclature only and did not affect any type of pay plan nor had a budget purpose.

The Commission is empowered with broad and general rule-making powers. La. Const. Art. X, 10 (1974); La.R.S. 33:2400, et seq. If, however, a rule affects wages or hours it must be approved by the Council. See Civil Service Commission Rules, Rule IV, Section 1.2; Home Rule Charter of City of New Orleans, Article 3, Section 3-118.

The change complained of by the City was the re-classification of employees in what had been the Administrative Analyst Series to a newly created series, the Management Analyst Series. A new job specification was created for the Management Analyst Series, which was different from the Administrative Analyst Series. In four instances, there was a change in salary for employees who were changed from the Administrative Analyst Series to the Management Analyst Series.

The City has argued that based on the testimony presented at the trial below, it is clear that the decision to re-classify the employees was caused by concern that federal funding for the positions might disappear, and these employees would be terminated. This is disputed by the Commission. Although only four of the positions that were re-classified received a different pay plan, the Constitution clearly mandates that approval by the council was required for the change.

We point out that simply changing the name of the positions does not appear to have been enough to require Council approval; neither would the changing of the job classification requirements. Because, however, some employees would receive different compensation under the new plan, the decision of the trial court enjoining the Commission from promulgating these rules was correct.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 So. 2d 1134, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-orleans-v-civil-service-commission-lactapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack