Umekki Green VS LSU Health Science Center - Shreveport, Swanson Correctional Center for Youth
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2006 CA 2437 UMEKKI GREEN VERSUS LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER SHREVEPORT SWANSON CORRECTIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH Judgment Rendered September 14 2007 0bnI Appealed from the State Civil Service Commission State of Louisiana Docket Number 15875 James A Smith Chairman Burl Cain Vice Chairman G Lee Griffin Rosa B Jackson and Chatham H Reed Umekki Green Plaintiff Appellee Monroe LA In William A Norfolk Counsel for Defendant Baton Louisiana State Rouge LA Proper Person Appellant University Health Sciences Center ShrevepOli Swanson Correctional Center for Youth Robeli R Boland Jr Baton Rouge LA Counsel for Anne Soileau Director Depmiment Civil Service BEFORE WHIPPLE GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ of State HUGHES J Umekki Green Sciences Center verbally 2005 Ms Green on and Notably requested Ms Rather departure home s 5 January address suspension without her licensure On letter pay s 2006 was was appeal 3 2006 that January on 5 expired leave without pay Ms Green she status supervisor Kaye Clark later that day was obeyed prior to her and mailed to Ms being placed on pending verification of 2006 Ms Green filed examining the Commission referee a s any written notice given her notifying j social work practice being placed composed State Civil Service Commission After to Green Ms was not effective University Health 2 February action license that she clock out Green a Louisiana State Social Worker I with permanent as a instructed her that she ilmnediately Green employed by LSUHSC On December 31 Consequently was an appeal Commission challenging LSUHSC allegations contained subsequently sent with the Louisiana within s Ms written notice Green to LSUHSC s stating While it appears that cause existed for LSUHSC to suspend Ms Green from employment the pleadings suggest that Ms Green afforded the pre deprivation notice and opportunity to respond required by Civil Service Rule 12 7 and that Ms Green may not have received prospective notice of her was not suspension as circumstances of no her required by Civil Service Rule 12 8 surrounding Ms Green s suspension Given the I am aware Civil Service Rule that authorized LSUHSC to without with the without complying pay suspend notice requirements of the Civil Service Rules from the you are hereby given 15 calendar days of this notice to explain in writing why I should not Therefore date summarily grant Ms Green s appeal due to the defect noticed above 1 LSUHSC submitted copies ofseveral email communications transmitted this and other peliinent facts sUlTounding the incident 2 Ms Green took the examination at LSUHSC on January 30 2006 by Ms Clarke wherein she states work required to renew her license on January 27 2006 and retumed effective March 31 2006 She ultimately resigned on March 20 2006 to 2 In its written response Ms Green refelTed to been taken placed license suspension without against her was is not 26 July Pay prospective the rules course of action that while reasonable in appearance Ms Green on with the Civil Service Rules He 1 203 and pay pre 20 According to Civil Service Rule 1 an authority granted by appointing pay 4Civil LSUHSC lacked the 4 authority to because Ms Green had not been absent without an 5 option sanctioned by imposed by to Rule an Pay 12 76 well as 7 as Because the Civil Service Rules means appointing authority time off from work without for an unapproved absence provides in peliinent part appointing authority may extend leave of absence without pay to an employee provided that such leave shall not prolong the period ofthe employee s appointment disciplinary action which may be imposed against an employee such employee may be placed on leave without pay by unapproved for the period of unapproved absence appointing authority g In addition to any absence 12 6 b Pursuant to Civil Service Rule employee fails to obtain or loses as a certificate or other accreditation that is Civil Service Rule 12 7 provides an may be employee result of conduct that legally required No was non not work related permanent employee disciplinary action other than an emergency suspension proposed action and the reasons therefor a description and a reasonable opportunity to respond thereto disciplinary action a states shall be given A pennanent in part prior written notice 3 his when the license commission for his job the Civil Service Rule 12 8 a for removed disciplinarily may be removed or until he has been 7 however An an 6 or Service Rule 1127 a 5 Green afford Ms Green Civil Service Rule 12 8 to Leave ofAbsence Without or Ms disciplined Civil Service Rule 12 6 b to pursuant employ compliance to deprivation procedures under Civil Service notice in not a pursuant of these options would have required LSUHSC LSUHSC failed to apply that He noted that LSUHSC could have prospective written 3 was apparently concluded 11 27 could have removed her pursuant either pre leave without pay LSUHSC had undertaken placing approval concerning notice of the action do not that in impose leave without leave the referee issued his decision wherein he stated 2006 Civil Service Rules merely been she could not work until her as disciplinary action a and deprivation notice disciplinary action had LSUHSC further claimed that because renewed without pay no pay its letter to although it maintained that she had Rather Authorized Leave Without on On LSUHSC submitted that ofthe evidence employee oral given sUPPOliing who is removed subjected or the or to any written notice of proposed subjected action to any the referee determined that LSUHSC had acted referee Ms Green summarily granted with interest for the Thereafter period she LSUHSC filed Civil Service Commission the referee was on appeal and awarded s unpaid her back pay leave application for review with an Commission Its application was the State denied and decision became the final decision of the Commission s the improperly Accordingly This appeal followed After law we are a thorough examination of the record herein unable to say arbitrary capricious that the Commission or an status however it argues that leave either maxim of the no on an not employee Civil Service Rule We find such argument an interpretation inclusio nearly verbatim decision in this abuse of discretion In brief LSUHSC concedes that the Civil Service Rules do leave without pay s to expressly permit whose prohibits license it from be contrary to controlling matter was essentially it to has impose expired imposing such the well settled unius est exclusion alterius State Police Commission Rules without pay this court and the In addressing pertaining to leave previously noted complete reading of the rule regulating Leave of Absence Without Pay this leave status is initiated by the employee unless imposed by the appointing authority for an The employee herein did not request unapproved absence Leave Without Pay nor was it imposed for an unapproved from Clearly a absence The State Police Commission Rules do not recognize or include When the Mandatory Leave Without Pay status Department imposed Leave of Absence Without Pay status on the employee it was improper and in violation of the State a Police Commission Rules Department Temple of Public Safety 638 So 2d 1173 that LSUHSC s 1175 and Corrections La App 1 Cir 1994 argument is without merit 4 Office of State Police Accordingly we v find Alternatively LSUHSC Ms Green constitutional However work the was we asserts that imposing leave without find its argument that Ms Green was not a classified as a at not Ms Green could not have been detailed to than that of fully we The pending as a student in which she no reason to special duty social worker a absolutely why temporarily verification of her agree with LSUHSC that Ms Green the duties of performing required license we likewise a social worker without concur LSUHSC failed to address the matter the specious be 8 While from any LSUHSC both LSUHSC offered was perform work other to work no legally do not employee during periods of time Moreover licensed could licensed social worker record reflects that Ms Green had worked employee and given the could utilize prohibition against paying employees who perfonn because she 1 lcense it only viable procedure pay upon controlling Civil Service Rules and should be followed Therefore we by utilizing an s are not University Health Sciences the conclusion that option authorized by a favored in this hereby affirm the decision of the Commission Appeal prohibited possessing The Civil Service rules have Creative sanctions with Uniform Rules Comis of amount of with the referee was Rule 2 16 1B purpose context in accordance Louisiana State Center is cast with the costs of this appeal in the 119 50 AFFIRMED 8 Civil Service Rule 1 13 1 defines Detail to Special Duty as the temporary assignment of an employee to perf01111 the duties and responsibilities of a position other than the one to which he is regularly assigned without prejudice to his rights in and to his regular position 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
