Seaman v. City of Leesville

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Seaman v. City of Leesville

672 So. 2d 914, 1996 La. LEXIS 1413, 1996 WL 249813

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 10, 1996

DocketNo. 96-C-0884

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 672 So. 2d 914 (Seaman v. City of Leesville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seaman v. City of Leesville, 672 So. 2d 914, 1996 La. LEXIS 1413, 1996 WL 249813 (La. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Leesville, City of; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA95-0587; Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 49,133.

Writ granted. The Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the City failed to provide adequate due process to its employee. The purpose of LSA-R.S. 33:2560(D), requiring written notification of termination with reasons for the discharge, is to afford due process to the employee so that he can know with reasonable particularity the facts and circumstances he or she might be called upon to rebut in case the employer makes out a prima facie case. Powell v. City of Winnfield Fire & Police Civ. Serv. Bd., 370 So.2d 109 (La.App. 2 Cir.1979). The evidence reveals that the plaintiff previously received this notification in the pretermination letter sent to the plaintiff on January 5, 1990. Accordingly, the decision of the Leesville Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board, upholding the City of Leesville’s decision to dismiss the plaintiff, is reinstated.

CALOGERO, C.J., and BLEICH, J., would deny the writ. KIMBALL, J., not on panel.

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

In re Leesville, City of; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA95-0587; Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 49,133.

Writ granted. The Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the City failed to provide adequate due process to its employee. The purpose of LSA-R.S. 33:2560(D), requiring written notification of termination with reasons for the discharge, is to afford due process to the employee so that he can know with reasonable particularity the facts and circumstances he or she might be called upon to rebut in case the employer makes out a prima facie case. Powell v. City of Winnfield Fire & Police Civ. Serv. Bd., 370 So.2d 109 (La.App. 2 Cir.1979). The evidence reveals that the plaintiff previously received this notification in the pretermination letter sent to the plaintiff on January 5, 1990. Accordingly, the decision of the Leesville Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board, upholding the City of Leesville’s decision to dismiss the plaintiff, is reinstated.

CALOGERO, C.J., and BLEICH, J., would deny the writ. KIMBALL, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 So. 2d 914, 1996 La. LEXIS 1413, 1996 WL 249813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaman-v-city-of-leesville-la-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack