CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Housing Authority of New Orleans is a Louisiana state agency charged with providing safe, affordable housing to economically disadvantaged citizens in Orleans Parish. Yves Gelin is an attorney who served in various positions in the HANO office of general counsel. Immediately prior to dismissal, he served as general counsel � an unclassified, exempt and at-will position. In December 2003, Gelin informed his superior, Catherine Lamberg, that he would have to report a purported agency bribe to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He contends that his relationship with Lamberg became strained as a result and that, in February 2004, she terminated his employment while he was on approved sick leave. Gelin filed suit against HANO in federal district court, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. �1983, the Family Medical Leave Act and state law. He alleged that the agency terminated him for speaking out on a matter of public concern and failed to properly compensate him for the hours he worked. After Gelin abandoned his FMLA claim, the district court granted HANO’s motion for summary judgment on his �1983 claim, finding 1. no evidence that Lamberg was a final policymaker for employment matters at HANO and 2. no evidence of a causal connection between Gelin’s termination and his alleged protected activity. The district court subsequently dismissed his state claim for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. Gelin appeals the grant of summary judgment. HOLDING:Affirmed. The parties have not identified, through citations to state or local law, the entity or individual with final policymaking authority for HANO personnel matters. They both assume that the HANO Board of Commissioners had such policymaking authority, but disagree as to whether the board delegated that authority to Lamberg. Similar cases have been remanded to allow the parties to fully brief the sources of state law. The court finds remand unnecessary here because the evidence of “custom or usage” provided by the parties � including deposition testimony, personnel manual provisions, and affidavits � establish that Lamberg, at least, did not wield such policymaking authority for the agency. Gelin suggests that, even if the board did not expressly delegate policymaking authority to Lamberg, she was nevertheless the de facto final policymaking authority for termination decisions, because her decisions were administratively unreviewable. He contends that the grievance procedure in HANO’s policy manual is ineffective because it does not explicitly provide for administrative review of termination decisions and, to the extent it does, “any decision is subject to review by the Executive Director, the same person with decision making authority respective to terminations.” Although the court’s decision in Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (1989) eschews the importance of administrative reviewability in distinguishing final decisionmaking authority from final policymaking authority, the court has found the existence of effective administrative review to be relevant in certain contexts. The court does not address any apparent disharmony because the court decides that Gelin’s termination decision was subject to review. Gelin’s own testimony contradicts his argument that Lamberg was the sole and final decisionmaker for employment decisions. He testified that one other individual could overrule Lamberg’s decisions to hire and fire department heads. In addition, he testified that, although Lamberg offered to rehire him, other HUD officials made the decision not to do so. Aside from the various individuals who could apparently overrule Lamberg’s decision, HANO also had a three-phase grievance procedure that allowed an employee to request and obtain a hearing by the Executive Director or a three-person committee. There is no record evidence indicating that the committee process was merely a rubber stamp for the decisions of the appointing authority. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Lamberg was the executive director. Finally, although Gelin asserts that the terms of the grievance procedure do not explicitly apply to disputed termination decisions, there is no record evidence to dispute HANO’s assertion that Gelin could have pursued an appeal. OPINION:Garza, C.J.; Smith, Garza and Owen, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.