Opinion
No. 13–701.
2013-12-11
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FOR the CITY OF OPELOUSAS v. CITY OF OPELOUSAS, Through Its Mayor, Donald Cravins, Sr., and the Appointing Authority, The Board of Aldermen, et al.
Eric LaFleur, J. Gregory Vidrine, Mahtook & LaFleur, Ville Platte, Louisiana, for Defendants/Appellants, The City of Opelousas, Roger Brown, George Gennuso, Delores Guillory, and Eva Noel. Christine Mire Matherne, Williams & Associates Law Firm, Lafayette, Louisiana, for Defendants/Appellants, Roger Brown, George Gennuso, Delores Guillory, and Eva Noel.
Eric LaFleur, J. Gregory Vidrine, Mahtook & LaFleur, Ville Platte, Louisiana, for Defendants/Appellants, The City of Opelousas, Roger Brown, George Gennuso, Delores Guillory, and Eva Noel. Christine Mire Matherne, Williams & Associates Law Firm, Lafayette, Louisiana, for Defendants/Appellants, Roger Brown, George Gennuso, Delores Guillory, and Eva Noel.
Jerry J. Falgoust, Falgoust, Caviness, & Bienvenu, LLP, Opelousas, Louisiana, for Plaintiff/Appellee, Civil Service Commission for the City of Opelousas.
Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, JIMMIE C. PETERS, and JAMES T. GENOVESE, Judges.
GENOVESE, Judge.
Defendants, Roger Brown, George Gennuso, Delores Guillory, and Eva Noel, appeal the trial court's ruling relative to their status as classified employees subject to the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission for the City of Opelousas. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2011, the Civil Service Commission for the City of Opelousas (Civil Service Commission) filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment naming as defendants: (1) the City of Opelousas through its Mayor, Donald Cravins, Sr.; (2) the City's seven aldermen; and, (3) thirty-three of the City's employees. The Civil Service Commission alleged that the employees were hired in violation of its rules and regulations. Its petition requested: (1) a declaration from the trial court “that all personnel of the CITY OF OPELOUSAS are members of the classified service of the CITY OF OPELOUSAS except those which are specifically excluded by the August 12, 1961 Opelousas Ordinance and/or Article 10, Section 2 of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution;” (2) a declaration from the City of Opelousas “under what authority [the employees] were hired in an unclassified position;” (3) a declaration from the trial court “as to what positions,if any, are considered a head of a ‘principal executive department’ and are to be excluded from the Opelousas Civil Service;” and, (4) an order from the trial court for “those employees hired as unclassified to apply for their positions with the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF OPELOUSAS.”
Originally, twenty-nine employees were named as defendants. Four additional employees were added as defendants via an amended petition filed in March 2012.
A two-day bench trial was held, after which the trial court took the matter under advisement and issued Reasons for Judgment. On April 9, 2013, the trial court signed a judgment declaring that seventeen of the thirty-three employees named as defendants, including Roger Brown, George Gennuso, Delores Guillory, and Eva Noel, were classified employees subject to the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission for the City of Opelousas. This appeal by the four above-mentioned Defendants followed.
Eight of the thirty-three employees named as defendants were dismissed from these proceedings because they were no longer employed by the City of Opelousas at the time of trial.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Appellants assert one assignment of error: the trial court “erred in finding that [they] were not properly employed within the City's unclassified service.” Roger Brown contends that “as the head of a principal executive department unanimously established by the Board of Aldermen at their January 2011 regular meeting, [he] falls into the unclassified service as dictated by Article 10, § 2 of the 1974 Constitution.” It is George Gennuso's argument that he “serves as the principal assistant and/or confidential position holder to a principal executive department head (Roger Brown), and, as such, he falls into the unclassified service as dictated by Article 10, § 2 of the 1974 Constitution.” Delores Guillory argues that she “holds a confidential position to a principal executive department head (Melanie LeBouef–Director of the Department of Tourism and Culture), and, as such, she falls into the unclassified service as dictated by Article 10, § 2 of the 1974 Constitution.” It is Eva Noel's contention “that, as the head of a principal executive department unanimously established by the Board of Aldermen at their January 2011 regular meeting, [she] falls into the unclassified service as dictated by Article 10, § 2 of the 1974 Constitution.”
DISCUSSION
At the trial of this matter, the trial court was presented with testimony from numerous individuals as well as documentary evidence. This is a manifest error case. It is clear from reviewing the record, including the written Reasons for Judgment, that the trial court thoroughly analyzed the evidence before it. We see no reason to replicate the trial court's detailed analysis, and we find no manifest error in its ruling. Thus, we affirm and adopt the trial court's well-reasoned opinion as our own. Its opinion is incorporated by reference as Appendix “A” to this opinion.
DECREE
For the reasons articulated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, adopt its opinion as our own, and incorporate its opinion by reference. Costs of this appeal are assessed against Roger Brown, George Gennuso, Delores Guillory, and Eva Noel.
AFFIRMED.
APPENDIX “A”
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE