Audrey Jones VS Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2006 CA 2466 AUDREY JONES VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS LOUISIANA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN Judgment Appealed from the SEP 1 4 2007 Rendered State Civil Service Commission State of Louisiana Docket Number 15804 James A Smith Chairman Burl Cain Vice Chairman U David Duplantier G Lee Griffin Rosa B Jackson John McClure and Chatham Reed Mark E Falcon Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Daniel L Avant Audrey Debra Counsel for Defendant Rutledge Jones Susan Wall Griffin Appellee Department of Public Safety and Baton Corrections Louisiana Rouge LA Correctional Institute for Women Robert R Boland Jr Counsel for Anne S Soileau Baton Director Rouge LA Department Civil Service BEFORE DISPOSITION PARRO KUHN AND DOWNING JJ Affirmed of State KUHN J This is appeal of an Service Commission against we classified a final decision rendered a in Commission state employee was which upheld by the State Civil the For the disciplinary reasons action that follow affirm FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Audrey Corrections Jones was Louisiana Conectional Institute for Women approximately sixteen Conections Master was assigned to is During years On Sergeant serve as According duty employed by the Depmiment of Public Safety and her tenure August 13 2005 Master Orders the Dorm Control is Compound Manager whenever there is or among inmates that may Typically with and has supervisors of any have another required as to a Control Post required It is The Control Post is imperative routine to and their question relieve her inspections equipped Master perform other patrolling the Sergeant inspecting 2 can aleli whenever she is necessary duties respective exercise yards Jones the Control Post at While to to that the Donn Control Officer relieve her at the Control Post leave the confines of the post corrections officer perform problems the date in problems stay within the to with which the Donn Control Officer inspecting the cellblocks On the require reinforcements telephone employee dormitory informing receive pager and intercom communications from officers premises a primary s appears to be behavior the Dorm Control Officer is centrally located s charged Jones Dormitory Dorm Control Officer the Officer such Sergeant the Dorm Control Officer of the Leo to the Post for she obtained the rank of management and control of imnate traffic within Fmiher dorm LCIW one so ordered another that she could of the exercise yards Master Sergeant Jones encountered Keisha Williams a required Jones that Ms Williams Ms Williams Walker unit near alerting the door to await to Captain Ennis to to the exercise alone in the on an notified that in Ms Williams l3g Malfeasance Aggravated that his duties so as to in pay disciplinary action equal to a the defiant imnate She personally called her supervisor to one race Master Sergeant Jones to Sergeant aware Walker s of aid of these officers 2005 Master Sergeant despite being she had Each violated Jones aware of the Employee Employee must was Rule perform responsibilities of his assignment Master one in began assaulting Sergeant Walker states fulfill the purpose and Consequently LCIW sanctioned reduction yard with Walker alone leaving Sergeant problems presented by 23 come yard adjacent exercise yard became injured By letter dated September to Jones chose to go back into the Following respective posts Ms Williams also assaulted and three direct orders yard and remaining with Sergeant Ms Williams supervising inmates Sergeant by pushing the intercom button Sergeant request assistance the attack and left their or leave the exercise the Control Post and departure from the yard Officers to assistance Master then walked back Master was Jones decided to terminate Ms Sergeant the Control Post leaving Sergeant Walker she status running around the yard and giving her was repeatedly refused Rather than staff general population but rather and gave her two period supervising high risk Sergeant Walker informed Master Accordingly Williams exercise located with the exercise alone to problems Because of Ms Williams to exercise allowed not was for violence towards high risk inmate known members and other inmates was Sergeant Walker who Sergeant day suspension Jones by imposing She appealed a the A hearing rather than Sergeant was the control office to returning to improper was alone with a defiant would have done and for Master demonstrates the particularly so in such high risk inmate so a impropriety since Master of Jones Sergeant assist Conversely Sergeant Master expressly required Sergeant Walker witnessed Ms Williams in choosing to return to Ultimately Thereafter Master Commission they never challenging The instant Sergeant for reinforcements This was could have activated the summon argued that there her to remain physically present reinforcements was no posted in the exercise She further maintained that because she had not referee Jones filed s she acted well within her discretion to call sustained the referee application and the referee Commission Sergeant Walker Jones acting violently Sergeant Post dictated sense Walker alone easily until Sergeant Walker in the interim the Control Post the supervisor to notwithstanding situation and that leaving Sergeant remaining present to with the door LCIW maintained that the fact that Master nearby intercom button and had the Control yard near that Master Sergeant Walker Jones to leave Sergeant argued Captain Ennis experience simple common J ones went back to the Control Post to call her order that call LCIW Numerous LCIW officers testified that occupational knowledge while referee and remained with the irunate and yard assistance arrived that it a Jones should have activated the intercom button the exercise their subsequently held before s an Captain LCIW s application decision Ennis for assistance disciplinary action for review with the The Commission denied the decision became the final decision of the appeal followed 4 DISCUSSION In Bannister 666 So 2d 641 review as Department v 647 of Streets 95 0404 p supreme court set fOlih the our 8 La applicable 1 16 96 standard of follows In civil service presented with a disciplinary cases appellate an multifaceted review function civil matters deference will be First as comi is in other factual conclusions given deciding whether to affirm the Commission s factual findings a reviewing comi should apply the clearly wrong or manifest error rule prescribed generally for appellate review of the Commission Second in to whether the and Hence evaluating to the in the Commission disciplinary with the infraction commensurate s determination action is both based the on comi legal as cause should not modify the Commission s arbitrary capricious or abuse of discretion characterized by Arbitrary or means the absence of a rational basis for the action capricious order unless it is taken Employees with permanent status in the classified civil service may be disciplined only for cause expressed in writing Cause for the dismissal of such person includes conduct service involved or detrimental to its a prejudicial to the public efficient operation Stated differently disciplinary action against a civil service employee will be deemed arbitrary and capricious unless there is a real and substantial relationship between the improper conduct and the efficient operation of the public service Internal citations omitted In the disputed facts LCIW present appeal Rather Master Sergeant the Commission erred in s disciplinary action In foregoing precepts dictate that conduct was After that Master LCIW the Commission prejudicial a thorough Sergeant simply concluding addressing we to LCIW Jones thereby providing a factual findings s that legal cause the merits of her efficient conduct did not existed for argument the Sergeant Jones operation we are impair the rational basis for the 5 are argues that based upon the determine whether Master review of the record Jones s compelled efficient to conclude operation discipline imposed of upon her As a result of Master isolated with injured a defiant Sergeant Jones actions While there may have been no to written officer alone with Indeed Master employees that a defiant Sergeant high risk irunate Jones statement was attacked and to render aid policy expressly addressing the it the was officer should an was abandon their posts particular factual situation presented herein of LCIW ectional officer high risk irunate and subsequently Moreover other officers had consensus a con overwhelming not leave another under these circumstances that she did not feel the need to stay with Sergeant Walker is wholly incongruent with her detennination that reinforcements were needed to aid Sergeant Walker Thus the decision of the Commission in this arbitrary nor capricious and we decline to disciplinary modify we matter conclude that was neither it CONCLUSION For the foregoing Commission is affirmed this reasons the final decision of the State Civil Service Appellant Audrey appeal AFFIRMED 6 Jones is cast with all costs of
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.
