 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Deal v. Monroe Municipal Fire6/21/2000
Judgment rendered June 21, 2000.
Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
The plaintiff, Karl Deal, appeals a judgment affirming the decision of the Monroe Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board, which found that the City of Monroe acted in good faith and for cause in terminating Deal's employment with the Fire Department. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS
On August 6, 1998, Karl Deal was working as a Captain in the Monroe Fire Department when he was instructed to report to the St. Francis Medical Center in Monroe, Louisiana, for a random drug and alcohol screening test. Hospital personnel collected a urine sample from Deal, who returned to work. The results of Deal's test were reported as positive for alcohol at a level of .12 grams per deciliter (g/dl). On August 18, 1998, the Fire Department issued written notice to Deal that his employment had been terminated due to a positive test result for alcohol at a level which exceeded the allowed limit of .01 grams of alcohol per 100 cubic centimeters of blood, as provided in the "Policy and Procedure Relative to Drugs and Alcohol" enacted by the City of Monroe ("City").
Deal filed an appeal of his termination with the Monroe Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board (the "Board"). Following a hearing, the Board issued a written finding of fact concluding that the evidence sufficiently established that Deal had violated the City's policy related to alcohol. The Board also found that the City, as appointing authority, had acted in good faith and for cause in terminating Deal's employment.
The plaintiff, Karl Deal, sought review of the Board's decision in the district court. After hearing argument by the parties, the district court determined that the Board's decision was supported by the evidence presented and that the Board had acted in good faith and for cause. The district court rendered judgment affirming the decision of the Board to uphold the City's termination of plaintiff's employment. The plaintiff appeals the judgment.
DISCUSSION
The plaintiff contends the district court erred in affirming the Board's decision, which upheld the City's termination of his employment. Plaintiff first argues that the Board failed to follow the proper evidentiary rules in admitting the urine test results into evidence without a sufficient factual foundation.
Any regular employee in the classified service who feels that he has been discharged without just cause may demand a hearing by the board to determine the reasonableness of the action. LSA-R.S. 33:2501(A). Both the employee and the appointing authority shall be afforded an opportunity to appear before the Board and present evidence. The Board shall have complete control over any such hearing and may conduct it in any manner deemed advisable without prejudice to any party. The procedure followed shall be informal and not necessarily bound by the "legalistic rules" of evidence. LSA-R.S. 33:2501(B)(3).
In the present case, the testimony presented during the plaintiff's hearing, which was held at the Board's August 31, 1998 meeting, was not transcribed. However, the oral testimony is summarized in the minutes of the meeting and the Board's written finding of fact. Plaintiff argues that his test results should not have been admitted into evidence because the meeting minutes fail to establish that the specimen was properly taken, labeled, preserved and transported for analysis.
Although the Board did not follow the formal rules of evidence, the meeting minutes include information about the testing process. The St. Fr
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|