Articles Posted in Litigation

Workplaces have rules employees must follow. Termination for violation of these rules must be in good faith. What happens when an employee argues he was fired arbitrarily? The following case helps answer this question. 

Nolvey Stelly was terminated from the Lafayette Police Department  (LPD) for failing to follow orders. An investigation was ordered, and Stelly was suspended for fifteen days. He appealed the suspension, which was affirmed. Stelly then appealed to the trial court, which also upheld his suspension. Before his fifteen-day suspension, Stelly was called to a pre-determination hearing, which he secretly recorded and invited news outlets to attend. The recording and the invitation violated the LPD’s rules on professionalism. A second investigation was then conducted. During the investigation, Stelly was placed on paid administrative leave with strict orders not to engage in off-duty employment. Stelly worked a second job during this time, which prompted a third investigation of his misconduct. Stelly was then terminated. 

Stelly appealed his termination to the Lafayette Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board (Board), which upheld the previous decisions. The trial court also affirmed the decision, which Stelly appealed. Stelly argued the ruling was not in good faith, the penalty was unreasonable, his actions did not violate the LPD’s operating procedures, his actions did not affect his working duties, and his discipline was not on par with his alleged offenses. 

We can all relate to the embarrassment of hitting “reply all” on an email only intended for a smaller audience. Although usually “replying all” just results in embarrassment that eventually subsides, sometimes it can lead to more severe actions, such as losing your job. 

Frith Malin worked as a deputy director at the Orleans Parrish Communications District (“OPCD”), which was responsible for providing 911 services. After she had worked there for eight years, the executive director of the OPCD emailed all employees to inform them one of OPCD’s board members had been named CEO of another organization so that he would be stepping down from OPCD’s board. Malin accidentally hit “reply all,” instead of emailing just OPCD’s executive director criticisms about the departing board member.  

Three days later, Malin was suspended. OPCD conducted an internal investigation, which led to Malin’s eventual termination. A few months before sending the email, Malin had reported the Human Resources manager who investigated commentary related to sexually explicit images on six different occasions. There was no evidence Hobson was aware Malin had reported her, and Hobson was never disciplined. Following her termination, Malin filed a lawsuit against OPCD under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of her First Amendment rights. She also brought claims under Title VII and La. R.S. 23:967, Louisiana’s whistleblower statute. She alleged OPCD had retaliated against her for reporting the Human Resources manager. OPCD filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted. Malin appealed, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing her claims against OPCD.