Stafford v. City of Baton Rouge
This text of 393 So. 2d 399 (Stafford v. City of Baton Rouge) 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.
Opinions
This is a suit for wages, penalties and attorney fees under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 23:631-632.1
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her suit on a motion for summary judgment. The sole issue is the applicability of LSA-R.S. 23:631-632 to a governmental agency.
[400]*400We affirm.
When plaintiff was discharged from her job with the City-Parish of East Baton Rouge, she demanded her wages on two occasions. Defendant at first insisted no wages were due, and later that there was no wage dispute. Finally, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the statutes do not apply to governmental agencies. The trial court relying on Barcena v. City of New Orleans, 221 La. 652, 60 So.2d 74 (1952) granted the judgment of dismissal.
In Barcena the court found that the phrase “person, individual, firm or corporation” did not include a governmental agency. This court held in Hays v. Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, 165 So.2d 556 (1st Cir. 1974), writs refused 246 La. 855, 167 So.2d 672 (1964), that the amendment to “person” instead of “person, individual, firm or corporation” did not have the effect of making governmental agencies liable.
Appellant contends that the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 dictates a contrary result. The provision cited, Art. 12, Sec. 10(A), (B), is the one declaring no immunity in contract or tort. The Barcena case was not founded on such immunity, but rather on statutory interpretation.
It might be argued that the use of the term, “employer” in Section 632 indicates an intention to require a different result. However, the term “person” is still used in Section 631. An intention to change the result could have been much more plainly stated.
For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed at appellant’s costs.
AFFIRMED.
EDWARDS, J., dissents and will assign reasons.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
393 So. 2d 399, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 5004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stafford-v-city-of-baton-rouge-lactapp-1980.