Jennifer Toms and Loren James VS Department of Health & Hospitals, Office for Citizens with Developmental Disabilities, Pinecrest Developmental Center
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2008 CA 1105 JENNIFER TOMS AND LOREN JAMES VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS OFFICE FOR CITIZENS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES PINECREST DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER Judgment Rendered 1 On DEe 2 3 Z008 Appeal from the Civil Service Commission Number 16 277 Honorable James A Smith Chairman Daniel E Broussard Jr Counsel for Plaintiffs Alexandria LA Jennifer Toms and Loren James Robert Boland Counsel for Defendant Appellee Baton Rouge LA Appellants Department of State Civil Service BEFORE PETTIGREW McDONALD AND HUGHES JJ HUGHES J This is Commission follow we from appeal an denying vacate the ruling of the Louisiana Civil Service a plaintiffs a salary adjustment the Civil Service Commission For the ruling reasons that and dismiss the appeal FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts and procedural history of this the decision rendered case are thoroughly detailed in by the Civil Service Commission stating Statement of the Appeal Jennifer Toms and Loren James work for the Department of Health and Hospitals DHH at Pinecrest Developmental Center Both served with permanent status Ms Toms served OCDD Active Treatment Specialist 4 until her detail to PDC as an Specialist 8 RSS 8 on May 29 2007 promoted to the RSS 8 position on August 6 Residential Services Ms Toms 2007 was Mr Specialist James served as OCDD Active Treatment an 3B until his detail to RSS 8 AUJust James continues in this detail On October 11 2007 Ms Toms and Mr Jam appeal complaining that they optional pay adjustment They contend that other pay pursuant to 20 2007 on a July to were s denied a filed a seven Mr notice of percent their salaries for additional duties RSS 8 s at PDC received the 30 2007 settlement that appeal On November 13 2007 the let al optional reached in Department of State Civil Service Docket 16155 They argue that they perform the same duties that the Harmson appellants perform and thus they are entitled to the same optional pay They claim that denying them optional pay constitutes a further violation of Article X S 10 of the Louisiana Constitution and the principle of equal pay for equal work the of Matt Harmson was v T he Department of State Civil Service In motion for summary disposition moving for summary disposition Civil Service points out that Ms Toms and Mr James do not contest the allocation and pay Civil Service filed a That is Ms Toms and Mr James do not range of their jobs allege the duties they are now performing are not the duties of a they allege the duties of an RSS 8 changed after they moved into the RSS 8 jobs Civil Service contends that a uniform pay and classification plan requires only that employees performing the same work be paid within the same RSS 8 nor do Civil Service also contends that it was the additional duties added to the Harmson appellants while they were RSS 8s pay range 2 in November 2005 optional pay James did not which Civil Service points come into the RSS 8 Civil Service maintains that 6 16 2 their supported a seven percent that Ms Toms and Mr out jobs until In addition 2007 interpretation of Rule proper pay for additional duties requires that the additional duties be given to an employee after they are regarding optional already in the job Finally Civil Service warns that it would effect a profound shift in public policy to award a promoted employee both a promotional increase and optional pay for duties that were in existence Civil promotion as 15 November 2007 afforded fifteen days disposition summary Mr James to the time of the Ms urges that and Mr James Toms respond to to the motion were s motion for Mr Toms and Civil Service On December 7 2007 responded sUffimar y Ms Toms and Mr James have failed appropriate state a basis of appeal On at position Service therefore dismissal is to the comprised and claiming that all RSS 8 employees at PDC except them are getting optional pay and that they have been excluded from this optional pay simply because of the date of their They disagree with Civil Service s interpretation that Rule 6 16 2 applies only when additional duties are given to an employee after they are holding the position They claim that this view is not supported in the language of the rule that the rule does not set forth this requirement and that the basis for the rule is additional duties and responsibilities not timing employment disagree with Civil Service s profound shift in public policy if Ms Toms and Mr James further contention that it will effect afforded they are due them pertaining application pay They claim that because of the facts and optional solely to a the RSS 8 s will be limited contend that while their PDC at is not or a discrepancy between pay ranges pay plan occurs when members parties agreed that the record submitted Article On a of the attack Pursuant to the we 6 16 2 2008 s James same on Civil Service class are paid differently this matter be submitted for decision January 8 X 912 A Rule the pay plan violation of the uniform an especially those who are similarly situated They urge that the motion be denied The that pay is circumstances Ms Toms and Mr Finally appeal and optional on considered this appeal of Louisiana Constitution we provisions following findings make the of fact and conclusions oflaw Findings of FactI determining these mdings of fact we take notice of the appeal of Matt Harmson v Department of State Civil Service the pleading filed by appellants and the briefs of the parties FNl In 3 1 Prior to November 2005 additional duties were added the to PDC PDC reviewed the RSS 8s duties and concluded that the additional duties merited reallocation to work of six RSS 8 Mental at s Retardation Developmental Regional promotion so the percent promotional raise in pay Associate Administrator 1 RSS 8 2 s received During a a seven This so Disability a was Civil Service reviewed the six routine audit reallocations and concluded that with the additional duties even the positions did not merit reallocation to Development Disability Regional Associate 3 On the February RSS 8s 3 reallocated were Developmental Disability to to to remove February On as May 29 2007 Ms Toms RSS 8 and she received Civil Service Rule 6 11 the pay s a seven On was 8 filed s This detailed an appeal appeal was Department of to the position of percent raise in pay pursuant to August 6 2007 Ms Toms was position She did not receive promotional because she had already received the 7 pay adjustment promoted pay Retardation to The Matt Harmson et a I v State Civil Service Docket No 16115 5 to return 3 2007 On docketed s promotional the 7 February 2 2007 the six RSS contesting Civil Service s conclusions 4 Mental Associate Administrator 1 classification of RSS 8 and retroactive Administrator I Civil Service directed PDC 2007 who Mental Retardation into that upon her detail to RSS 8 July 30 2007 Ms Toms was present during a settlement meeting between the six Harmson appellants and Civil Service During the meeting Civil Service recognized that since 2005 the Harmson appellants had been performing duties in addition to the duties that were required of their positions when they became RSS 8s Civil Service concluded that the proper 6 On action that PDC should have taken appellants optional was to give the Harmson pay July 30 2007 settlement and Rule 6 16 2 PDC gave the appellants a five percent optional pay adjustment and then requested approval from the Civil Service Commission for an additional two percent optional pay adjustment 7 Pursuant to the 8 On August received a 20 10 5 2007 pay Mr James adjustment was detailed to RSS 8 and Mr James continues in this detail point after August 20 2007 Ms Toms and Mr James requested optional pay contending that they perform the On same duties that the six Harmson appellants perform 9 At some 4 13 September 2007 DHH denied Ms Toms and Mr James request Civil Service Rule 6 7 10 the promoted 10 5 7 or that when employee shall be given an employee is increase in pay of based upon the number of pay grades the Civil Service Rule 6 11 provides that when 14 employee goes up an employee is detailed an special duty into to shall be increased pay provides to the rate his higher job a he could receive upon promotion Discussion and Conclusions of Law received that James contend and Mr Toms Ms that the other RSS 8 s pay pursuant to a July 30 2007 settlement reached in the appeal of Matt Harmson let al v optional was Department of State Civil Service Docket 16155 They argue that they perform the same duties that the Harmson appellants perform and thus they are entitled to the same optional pay They further claim that denying them optional T he pay constitutes a violation of Article X 9 10 Constitution and the principle of equal pay for Additional duties added were to Louisiana of the equal work the work of the Harmson appellants in November 2005 To compensate them for the additional duties they were performing since November 2005 they received a discretionary optional pay adjustment pursuant to Civil Service Rule 6 16 2 permanent RSS 8 the s when the additional duties in November positions RSS 8 Ms Toms and Mr James 2005 were or were not added when to the What constituted settlement was reached additional duties for the Harmson appellants in November 2005 were simply the duties of the RSS 8 position in August Harmson 2007 when Ms Toms They accepted detailed promoted and higher level RSS was the its concomitant duties and Mr 08 James position with compensated pursuant were was to Civil Ms Toms received a 7 Service Rules 6 7 and 6 11 promotional increase in pay and Mr James received a 10 5 increase in pay for the detail When an employee accepts a position the employee agrees to perform the duties that comprise the position Louisiana Article X Constitution Commission to adopt The constitutional a glO A l empowers uniform pay and classification for requirement the plan uniform pay plan apply to all positions in the a means schedule of pay must FN2 Clark v State 434 So 2d 1276 same job classification A writ denied 440 So 2d 152 La 1983 La App 1 Cir that the same uniform pay plan is not required to pay individuals in the same 3 FN3 Gaspard v Department of class the exact same pay La App I Cir 3 1194 634 State Civil Service 93 0311 Service So 2d 14 and Gorbaty v Department of State Civil 99 1389 La App I Cir 6 23 00 5 762 So 2d 1159 writ denied 774 So 2d 147 11 13 00 2000 2534 La pay plan does Uniformity of a require that all classifications be treated equally at all times Pay discrepancies to a slight extent exist 4 FN4 throughout the system Hollingsworth v State Through Department of Public Safety 354 So 2d 1058 La App 1 Cir 1977 writ denied 356 So 2d 1010 La 1978 Such discrepancies are caused primarily by the provisions of the Civil Service pay rules and the way the pay plan is 5 Here Ms structured FN5 Hollingsworth v State supra Toms and Mr James accepted the RSS 8 position with its job duties as they existed in August 2007 and its yearly pay range As compensation for performing the duties of the higher RSS 8 not to position pursuant Civil Service 6 11 Rule Ms Toms increase in pay and Mr James received a 10 5 increase in pay Both Ms Toms and Mr James are within the received a 7 pay range for the RSS 8 position We find that Ms Toms and Mr James are being paid in accordance with the uniform pay and classification plan James do not Toms and Mr Ms performing are allege they are nor do they allege the the duties of a RSS 8 not the duties changed after they moved into the positions Consequently we find that Ms Toms and Mr duties of the RSS 8 have failed to state the For a foregoing Service s Accordingly RSS 8 James basis of appeal Department of State Civil summary disposition is granted the reasons motion for this appeal is dismissed Following this ruling by the Civil Service Commission this to appealed court Commission erred adjustment 2 position were not the to on appeal assert 1 in denying them a their RSS 8 salaries retroactive in its entitled same and interpretation to the same classification Developmental of Rule optional and 16 6 pay that the Civil 2 date and 3 adjustment performing the Service percent optional pay seven to the plaintiffs same they assumed the in as finding other duties that they employees at in Pinecrest Center LAW AND ANALYSIS It is the sponte even duty of a court to when the issue is examine not raised 6 subject by the matter jurisdiction litigants sua McGehee v of East Baton City Parish 12 9 01 all civil and criminal otherwise authorized v Art matters 79 80 is to La and 20 18 1 App Cir for original jurisdiction unless courts S16 Moore See also LSA Const Art IV 46 SSI2 X and 50 expressly of certain claims in the Public Service the Civil Service Commission the State Police Commission Commission the juvenile and family of courts peace administrative bodies original jurisdiction courts the limited jurisdiction Matters are civil under matters the courts and the justice original jurisdiction that would otherwise come stated in LSA Const Art X under the SS8 and given 12 which the right to hear appeals provide Appeals A Disciplinary Actions No person who has gained in the classified state or city service shall be disciplinary action except for cause expressed in status permanent subjected to writing A classified emplovee subiected to such disciplinarv the riJht of appeal to the appropriate commission pursuant to Section 12 of this Part The burden of proof on appeal as to the facts shall be on the appointing shall have action authority classified emplovee shall be discriminated aJ ainst because of his political or reliJious B beliefs Discrimination sex or race No A classified emplovee so discriminated shall have the rif ht of appeal to the appropriate commission pursuant to Section 12 of this Part The burden afainst of proof on appeal 12 as to the facts shall be on the employee Appeal A of of the district court Id The Civil Service Commission is 8 original jurisdiction LSA Const Art V and Art SSI5 that states be in the district La 1990 V providing the explicitly by the constitution 567 So 2d 75 Roemer S21 3 p 809 So 2d 258 260 The Louisiana Constitution over 2000 1058 Rouge State The State Civil Service Commission shall have the exclusive power and authoritv to hear and decide all 7 as discivlinarv removal and with cases power to administer oaths It may power and subpoena appoint referee a with subpoena power and power to administer oaths to take testimony hear and decide removal and disciplinary cases The decision of a referee is subject to review by the commission on any question of law or fact upon the filing of an application for review with the commission within fifteen calendar days after the application for review decision of the referee is rendered is not If an filed with the commission timely the decision of the referee becomes the final decision of the commission as of the date the decision was If rendered application for review is timely filed with the commission after a review of the application by the commission an and the is denied the decision of the referee becomes the application final decision of the commission as of the date the application is The final decision of the commission shall be subject review on any question of law or fact upon appeal to the denied to court of appeal wherein the commission is located upon application filed with the commission within thirty calendar days after its decision becomes final Any referee appointed by the commission shall have been admitted to the practice of law in this state for least three years prior to his appointment added Emphasis In Louisiana 98 1587 at Department of Agriculture and Forestry 728 2 399 La the Louisiana 1254 So 2d concluded that Article X of the Louisiana Constitution the State of appeals Civil Service Commission state civil service discrimination claims claims provided Commission s S 12 authority nonetheless limited to by the to two employees provided for in quasi judicial s A for in and enact terms S 8 B S 8 A rules were held unconstitutional 1 Although civil limit on power to hear the of claims categories or 1 disciplinary court noted the though broad and general expressed in the constitution unconstitutional particular serves as a The supreme the court found that any Commission rules constitutional limits Court Supreme and 2 removal 1 Sumrall v Specifically service rules Therefore its power expanding beyond the supreme to the Section 12 establishes that the Commission has exclusive original is extent jurisdiction court they over all Thus Sections 8 and disciplinary cases the section is silent on discrimination cases together in order to assess the Cornmission s quasi judicial authority 2d So of Agriculture and Forestry v Sumrall 98 I 587 at pp 6 7 728 Department removal and 12 must be read 8 Louisiana at 1259 purported authorize to appeals the Commission to outside the scope of the Commission Article X 8 and 12 SS See Corrections 2001 2186 p La Sumrall 98 1587 12 28 99 Commission rules s court Following denial reviewed the beyond by the lower In so extend to 1 Cir only four categories sex Commission or other of Section 8 B Thus the that meaning were classified court court constitutional So 2d at provisions that the on only those so to employee brings categories The political or set religious plain supreme by classified cases v against stating text of the article Sumrall 98 1587 court ruled that the the Civil Service Commission do 9 a provision prohibits discriminated be ascertained from the relative constitutionally held that the section limits the to 1258 59 court reasoned that it is clear Department of Agriculture and Forestry 728 to unconstitutional the supreme sought those based they have been can a the supreme appellate jurisdiction s employees asserting Louisiana or race sex of the four enumerated one of discrimination race the jurisdiction relative its of the relief courts ruling straightforward reading 5 v App La and held that the Commission may matter forth in Section 8 B p Flanagan the four instances set forth in LSA Const Art discrimination claim based upon at v declaration that judicial a appellate jurisdiction only when exercise its no Forestry and 4 p and 835 So 2d 606 See also 99 1332 seeking S8 political beliefs religious beliefs beliefs Agriculture Safety Department of Agriculture and Forestry purporting discrimination claims that of Quality the Louisiana in the district filed suit a 1 Cir 9 27 02 App defined under 747 So 2d 763 765 In Sumrall from as of Public 728 So 2d at 1259 64 at pp 6 15 of Environmental Department jurisdiction Department v citing Louisiana Department 616 17 X Berry 15 limited s discrimination claims on not include the jurisdiction provisions authority hear to are to rules enact to expand the Commission 728 So 2d the words at other matters pertaining state a disciplinary action demotion but held that it did Police of the Forestry v not made in the disciplinary case rating improvement have Safety annual Louisiana 2 On appeal of the disciplinary action and that jurisdiction as matter a over nor such of the issue law Berry and Corrections 2001 2186 at pp it was a the v court constituted a allegation concluded that the trooper discriminatory of entertain the to no therefore this matter authority no of the appeal Department it not needs to hear the to unless court Performance jurisdiction citing Sumrall This was claim Commission lacked Public or an a upheld the trooper s performance rating trooper s discrimination removal was 10 Commission stated that the State Police Commission had appeal at pp resulting from later upgraded poor rating performance and of rating State demotion a sought review of and further The improvement Agriculture Louisiana appeals Sumrall 98 1587 v appealed trooper Planning and Review unfavorable to 1262 Berry In own appeals and that noticeably absent from the rulemaking Department of Agriculture and Forestry II s s needs removal State or Police Department of 16 17 835 So 2d at 617 18 In an 2 Flanagan Environmental a classified Specialist The State Police Commission has employee serving with permanent III with substantially the the same Louisiana jurisdictional basis status Department as as of the Civil Service provided in LSA Const Art X 46 A classified state police officer subjected n o to disciplinary action shall have the right of appeal to the State Police commission classified state police officer shall be discriminated against because of his political or religious and a classified state police officer so discriminated against shall have the beliefs sex or race 50 which provides that the the commission See also LSA Const Art X right of appeal to Commission as State Police Commission has the exclusive power and and disciplinary cases 10 authority to hear and decide all removal Environmental that he was appeal of denied previously filed a in retaliation for his promotion disciplinary a the denial of Quality DEQ appealed matter lawsuit in which he Flanagan contended that the denial of disciplinary appeal this Forestry Mr age discrimination promotion in retaliation for his prior discrimination based upon On citing Louisiana Department of Agriculture court and held that Sumrall v DEQ was without jurisdiction to Flanagan s claim of discrimination through DEQ s consideration of since LSA Const Art merit factors jurisdiction to Environmental Transportation La App employee I Cir not a on in the 14 10 08 account to of Gurba Crescent he non provide appellate political of Department v v this a of his leave for active Of Department 0264 City Connection 2008 denied was court held that a state because of military service did not promotion the Civil Service Commission because his claim did action political beliefs religious beliefs Sumrall Flanagan unpublished opinion following disciplinary interpretation 12 bases of discrimination race case Development right of appeal arise or SS8 and hear 1332 at pp 4 6 747 So 2d at 765 66 contending that discrimination have sex Quality 99 recently Most X only four the DEQ upon religious beliefs beliefs an The Civil Service Commission denied relief merit factors appeal having previously filed on and lawsuit constituted non promotion alleging prevailed and because he had based against DEQ a in Louisiana or sex from discrimination or race Service Commission limits those Likewise in the instant appeals case Civil Service Commission did not and appellate jurisdiction to one court s Forestry to v the Civil of those enumerated bases Ms Toms and Mr James arise from either 11 the basis of and the supreme Department of Agriculture of the constitutional grant of on appeal to disciplinary action the or discrimination Therefore and the on the basis of political beliefs religious the Civil Service Commission had appeal should have been dismissed no beliefs jurisdiction sex or race in this matter 3 CONCLUSION For the reasons assigned herein Service Commission is vacated and the bear its own costs of this the ruling appeal of the Louisiana Civil is dismissed Each party is to appeal RULING V ACA TED APPEAL DISMISSED the supreme court has recognized that for causes of action based on another form of discrimination or other deprivation of constitutional right not within the scope of the Commission s quasi judicial power as expressed in Article X ss 8 and 12 recourse is available in the district courts and plaintiffs seeking protection under any other law may take refuge in the Even so district courts of this state 98 I 587 at p 15 728 2d So Louisiana Department of at 1264 12 Agriculture and Forestry v Sumrall
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.
