Opinion
NUMBER 2022 CA 0515
11-04-2022
ST. GEORGE PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 4524, Joshua Harrell, Kristopher Peel, Jason Turner, David Hebert, Travis Moore, Jacob Crow, Blake Bourgeois, Chelsea Blount v. ST. GEORGE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 2, and Gerard Tarleton, in His Official Capacity as Fire Chief
Laura K. Cline, Louis L. Robein, Metairie, LA, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants, St. George Professional Firefighters Association Local 4524, Joshua Harrell, Kristopher Peel, Jason Turner, David Hebert, Travis Moore, Jacob Crow, Blake Bourgeois, and Chelsea Blunt Henry D.H. Olinde, Jr., Scott E. Mercer, Douglas S. Smith, Jr., Baton Rouge, LA, Counsel for Defendants/Appellees, St. George Fire Protection District No. 2, and Gerard Tarleton, in his official capacity as fire chief
Laura K. Cline, Louis L. Robein, Metairie, LA, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants, St. George Professional Firefighters Association Local 4524, Joshua Harrell, Kristopher Peel, Jason Turner, David Hebert, Travis Moore, Jacob Crow, Blake Bourgeois, and Chelsea Blunt
Henry D.H. Olinde, Jr., Scott E. Mercer, Douglas S. Smith, Jr., Baton Rouge, LA, Counsel for Defendants/Appellees, St. George Fire Protection District No. 2, and Gerard Tarleton, in his official capacity as fire chief
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY, AND WOLFE, JJ.
GUIDRY, J.
The plaintiff appeals a judgment, which sustained the defendant's exception of no right of action and dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The plaintiff in this case, St. George Professional Firefighters Association, Local 4524, filed a petition for declaratory judgment and supplemental relief against St. George Fire Protection District No. 2 (the "District") on July 23, 2021. Thereafter, the District filed an exception of no right of action. The District's exception was sustained by the trial court following a hearing on November 3, 2021. On November 9, 2021, a judgment was signed in conformity with the trial court's ruling. This appeal followed.
Local 4524 also brought suit against Gerard Tarleton in his official capacity as fire chief. In addition, Local 4524 amended its petition on August 24, 2021, naming as additional plaintiffs 117 individual members of Local 4524.
DISCUSSION
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred by finding that Local 4524 has no right of action against the District. Whether a plaintiff has a right of action is a question of law; therefore, it is reviewed de novo on appeal. Hill v. Jindal, 14-1757, p. 15 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/17/15), 175 So. 3d 988, 1000, writ denied, 15-1394 (La. 10/23/15), 179 So. 3d 600. The District asserts that Local 4524 has no right of action because no rights, status, or legal relationship exists between the District and Local 4524. The District further contends that Local 4524 lacks associational standing. Local 4524 maintains that it has a right of action through the doctrine of associational standing, which provides that an organization has standing, absent its own right of action, if any of its members suffer an injury due to the challenged action, and the law affords that member a remedy. See Caddo Federation of Teachers and Support Personnel v. Caddo Parish School Board, 45,357, pp. 3-4 (La. App. 2d Cir. 6/23/10), 41 So. 3d 1259, 1262. Local 4524 contends the trial court erred in dismissing it as a party that lacks associational standing.
The peremptory exception pleading the objection of no right of action tests whether the plaintiff has any interest in judicially enforcing the right asserted. La. C.C.P. art. 927(A)(6) ; Hill v. Jindal, 14-1757, p. 15 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/17/15), 175 So. 3d 988, 1000, writ denied, 15-1394 (La. 10/23/15), 179 So. 3d 600.
Whether an organization has associational standing to assert a claim on behalf of its members is determined by the three-part test articulated in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 342-343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed. 2d 383 (1977), and adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Louisiana Hotel-Motel Association, Inc. v. East Baton Rouge Parish, 385 So. 2d 1193 (La. 1980) and Ramsey River Road Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Reeves, 396 So. 2d 873 (La. 1981), The criteria that must be met before an association can bring a suit on behalf of its members are: (1) the members would otherwise be able to bring the suit in their own right, (2) the interests the association seeks to protect are pertinent to its purpose, and (3) neither the claim asserted by the association nor the relief sought requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Ramsey River Road Property Owners Association, Inc., 396 So. 2d at 874. The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that to meet the first prong of the Hunt test, the association must first establish harm that is not only "present or probable for the future," but also establish harm that would occur to the members themselves. Louisiana Hotel-Motel Association, Inc., 385 So. 2d at 1197.
Here, there seems to be no dispute that the individually named firefighters have standing to bring this suit in their own right. Local 4524 has asserted present or probable harm which would occur to the members themselves. Specifically, the association has asserted economic injury to its members for the District's alleged failure to compensate the members as required by law. The members herein clearly have standing to sue in their own right. Accordingly, the first prong of the Hunt test is satisfied.
We note that the judgment herein maintains the claims of the 117 firefighters in their individual capacity.
Next, to prove associational standing, Local 4524 must show that the interests it seeks to protect are pertinent to its purpose. In its petition, Local 4524 contends that its members constitute the majority of all classified employees serving the District, and that it is the recognized bargaining agent for its members with respect to their wages, hours, and working conditions. From our view, the petition indicates that the claims being made relate to a purpose for which the organization exists, and Local 4524's interests are consistent with this suit. Thus, we conclude that the second prong of the Hunt test is met.
Lastly, Local 4524 must show that individual participation of its members is not required for proper adjudication of this suit. Local 4524 seeks the following, pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1871 :
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1871 provides:
Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions may declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for; and the existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief in cases where it is appropriate. The declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.
(a) a declaratory judgment(s) establishing the controlling base pay/salary rates for each classification within the Fire District's classified fire service workforce now and within the 3 years preceding the filing of this Petition for the purpose of determining pay parity within the ranks of classified service as mandated by La. R.S. 33:1969 ;
(b) similarly, a declaratory judgment(s) establishing pay/salary differentials among the ranks of the classified service now and within the prior 3 years for the purpose of determining compliance with La. R.S. 33:1992(A)(3), (4) and (9) [.]
Notably, in La Grange v. Fire Protection District No. 4 of St. Tammany Parish, 03-0240, p. 12 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/7/03), 868 So. 2d 40, 47 n.8, this court found that La. R.S. 33:1969, titled "Equal recognition for equal performance," does not dictate equal compensation in the absence of an equal qualitative performance. This court recognized that the legislature intended that firefighters of the same rank, who have equal longevity in that rank and in the system overall, and who equally perform their duties will be paid the same hourly rate. Conversely, firefighters in the same rank who equally perform the same duties and responsibilities but have different lengths of overall service or service in that rank are not entitled to the same pay, as a different number of years of service in a particular rank does not qualify as equal performance of duty and responsibility. La Grange, 03-0240 at p. 11, 868 So. 2d at 47. The purpose of La. R.S. 33:1992, titled "Minimum salaries," and other statutes governing the pay of firefighters, is to provide uniform standards for the minimum wages and working conditions of firefighters. New Orleans Firefighters Local 632 v. City of New Orleans, 03-1281, p. 24 (La. App. 4th Cir. 05/26/04), 876 So. 2d 211, 227-228, writs denied, 04-1590, 04-1601, 04-1604 (La. 11/15/04), 887 So. 2d 475 and 476. In the present matter, in light of the aforementioned, and as it concerns La. R.S. 33:1969, we cannot conclude that Local 4524 has made a showing that the relief being sought does not require the participation of individual members. That is, given that equal compensation under La. R.S. 33:1969 is not absolute, we are unable to conclude that the petition sets forth relief that is merely a clarification of rights. Instead, the nature of the relief sought is specific to each firefighter, based upon that firefighter's class, rank, length of service, and other factors. Individualized proof, participation of individual members, is therefore required.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:1969 provides: "Equal recognition and compensation shall be received for equal performance of duty and responsibility."
Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:1992 provides in part:
A. The minimum monthly salaries of firemen in municipalities having a population of twelve thousand or more and in the city of Bastrop and of all parish and fire protection district paid firemen, including salaries payable out of the avails of any special tax provided by the Constitution of Louisiana for increasing the pay of firemen, shall be in accordance with the following schedule, and such salaries shall be paid semi-monthly not later than the fifth and twentieth day of each calendar month;
(1) A fireman shall receive a minimum monthly salary based on a regular hourly rate of pay compliant with the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. This salary shall be exclusive of supplemental pay received pursuant to R.S. 40:1666.1.
(2) Engineers shall receive a minimum monthly salary of not less than ten percent above that of a fireman.
(3) Lieutenants shall receive a minimum monthly salary of not less than fifteen percent above that of a fireman.
(4) Captains shall receive a minimum monthly salary of not less than twenty-five percent above that of a fireman.
...
(9) A fire alarm operator or dispatcher, or any other person doing this type of work for the fire department, shall receive a minimum monthly salary of not less than twenty-five percent above that of a fireman.
The La Grange court concluded that the enactment of La. R.S. 33:1992 did not implicitly repeal La. R.S. 33:1969. La Grange, 03-0240 at p. 11, 868 So. 2d at 47.
We do find, however, that the relief requested pursuant to La. R.S. 33:1992 is not specific to any individual party and that individualized proof would not be necessary in order to have the relief sought granted. Counsel for the District even stated at the November 3 hearing that "[t]he 1992 statutory framework is susceptible of a — a declaratory action that could possibly be applied across the board." We thus conclude that, under La. R.S. 33:1992, Local 4524 has satisfied the third prong of the Hunt test. Consequently, we find that Local 4524 has associational standing to bring this suit for declaratory relief.
By our ruling we make no determination as to the scope of the declaratory relief prayed for herein, noting that the trial court is vested with wide discretion in deciding whether to grant or refuse declaratory relief. See Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions ex rel. Webb v. Roberts, 00-2517, p. 3 (La. 2/21/01), 779 So. 2d 726, 728.
In making our determination, we emphasize that if a plaintiff has a right of action as to any one of the theories or demands for relief set out in his petition, the objection of no right of action should not be maintained. State, by and through Caldwell v. Astra Zeneca AB, 16-1073, p. 6 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/11/18), 249 So. 3d 38, 43 (en banc ), writs denied, 18-00766 (La. 9/21/18), 252 So. 3d 899 ; 18-0758 (La. 9/21/18), 252 So. 3d 904 ; Talbot v. C&C Millworks, Inc., 97-1489, pp. 4-5 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/29/98), 715 So. 2d 153, 156.
CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, the exception of no right of action is overruled, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the defendant/appellee, St. George Fire Protection District No. 2.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Wolfe, J. concurs.