Leander Chester, Jr. VS City of Ponchatoula, Louisiana, Marianne Sullivan, Administrator, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Louisiana Workforce Commission

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 0139 LEANDER CHESTER JR VERSUS 6 l CITY OF PONCHATOULA MARIANNE SULLIVAN ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE LOUISIANA WORKFORCE COMMISSION Judgment Jew Rendered September 10 2010 Appealed from the 21st Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana Case No 2009 0001111 The Honorable Robert H Morrison III Judge Presiding Thomas J Hogan Jr Counsel for PlaintiffAppellant Hammond Louisiana Leander Chester Jr Thomas B Waterman Ponchatoula Louisiana Counsel for Defendant Appellee City of Ponchatoula J Jerome Burden Counsel for DefendantAppellee Baton Rouge Louisiana Louisiana Workforce Commission BEFORE CARTER C GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ J GAIDRY J MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiff Leander Chester Jr was discharged from his employment as a police officer for the City of Ponchatoula the City and his subsequent claim for unemployment compensation benefits was denied on the grounds that his discharge was due to misconduct connected with his employment He now appeals a judgment of the 21 st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa dismissing the claims of his petition for judicial review of the decision of the Board of Review of the Office of Unemployment Insurance Administration the Board We affirm On August 5 2008 plaintiff and his girlfriend Candas Green were involved in an argument and altercation while he was off duty Ms Green filed a complaint in which she accused plaintiff of grabbing her around the neck during the course of their argument The original incident report dated August 5 2008 was an initial report prepared by Officer Glynn T Cacioppo and named Sergeant Jeffery Miller as the shift supervisor It listed the incident type signal as 35 D Simple Battery Dom and the offense as Simple Battery Domestic Violence 35 D under La R S 3 35 14 It also described the type weaponforce involved as 40 personal weapons On August 6 2008 the day after the incident it was discovered that the initial incident report prepared by Officer Cacioppo by computer entry had been accessed and unauthorized alterations made The evidence shows that as a computer system security measure any amendments or changes to incident reports had to be approved by the sergeant acting as shift supervisor who was responsible for locking the reports for his shift The entry for the incident type signal was changed to 35 Simple Battery 2 the offense was changed to Simple Battery PCC 30108 under La R S 35 14 and the type weapon involved was changed to 99 none force The chief of police requested the Louisiana state police to conduct an independent investigation in the course of which a computer access audit identified plaintiff as the person altering the report On August 19 2008 plaintiff met with a state police investigator and admitted in writing to accessing and altering the initial incident report Following the conclusion of the state police investigation plaintiff was discharged on August 27 2008 In its Separation Notice Alleging Disqualification the City stated that plaintiff was terminated for violation of Department policy unlawful access and injuring public records The last stated ground for termination was based upon the language of the criminal offenses of injuring public records set forth in La R 14 S 132 Plaintiff applied for unemployment compensation benefits but his claim was denied He appealed the agency determination to an appeal referee and following a hearing on December 22 2008 the administrative law judge ALJ serving as appeal referee issued her findings of fact and decision affirming the agency determination The Board affirmed the ALJ decision s adopting her findings of fact and conclusions of law Plaintiff then filed a 1 See La R 40 S 2531 2 The statute provides in pertinent part A First degree injuring public records is the intentional removal mutilation destruction alteration falsification or concealment of any record document or other thing filed or deposited by authority of law in any public office or with any public officer B Second degree injuring public records is the intentional removal mutilation destruction alteration falsification or concealment of any record document or other thing defined as a public record pursuant to R 44 et seq and required to be preserved in any public S 1 office or by any person or public officer pursuant to R 44 S 36 3 petition for judicial review and the trial court judgment affirming the s s Board legal conclusions is the subject of this appeal The scope of judicial review of the Board decision is limited to s determining whether its factual findings are supported by sufficient and competent evidence and whether the facts as a matter of law justify the action taken La R 23 Fontenot v Cypress Bayou Casino 06 S 1634 B 0300 p 4 La App 1st Cir 6 964 So 1035 1038 en banc 07 8 2d Plaintiff claims that the trial court and the Board erred in their rulings in that there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing on his part citing Banks v Adm of Dept of Employment Sec State ofLa 393 So 696 r 2d 699 La 1981 In Fontenot 060300 at pp 78 964 So at 104041 2d however this court held that the statutory definition of misconduct added in 1990 to La R 23 served to supplant the prior jurisprudential S 1601 a 2 definition and that there is no longer any requirement that the proscribed wrongful conduct be intentional in the sense of requiring an intent to do wrong Plaintiff emphasizes that he was unaware of any department policy forbidding the alteration of incident reports and that no evidence of a specific written policy to that effect was offered He further emphasizes that there is no evidence supporting the ALJ factual findings adopted by the s Board that he signed an acknowledgement of receipt of receiving and understanding the employer policy manual and that the manual stated s that falsifying or altering company documentation would lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination While we agree that the quoted findings are unsupported by any evidence and are therefore not conclusive other evidence supports the conclusion that misconduct justifying termination occurred 0 The incident report altered by plaintiff was unquestionably a public record within the meaning of La R 14 See La R 44 In S 132 S3 4 A his discharge disclosure statement plaintiff admitted to violating a policy or rule by changing a report without authority although he claimed he was unaware of the policy Plaintiff also attempted to justify his alteration of the report by testifying that by virtue of his status as a senior officer he occasionally acted as assistant shift supervisor in the absence of his shift supervisor Sergeant McGary and that in such capacity he had the authority to make sure the reports are done right It was clear from plaintiff s testimony however that he acted as assistant shift supervisor only when Sergeant McGary was off duty Thus the evidence refuted plaintiff s defense that he had supervisory authority to alter the incident report which did not issue from Sergeant McGary shift s s Plaintiff admitted conduct given its context clearly amounted to wrongdoing and quite probably violation of a law under the statutory definition of misconduct See La R 23 S 1601 a 2 It is self evident that a police department charged with the enforcement of the laws of this state has the right and obligation to require its officers to abide by those laws especially a law relating to public records maintained by police departments as public agencies See Rigney v Dept ofPolice 08 1435 pp 3 4 La App 4th Cir 4 10 So 861 863 64 writ denied 091069 09 15 3d La 9 18 So 79 and State v Brown 467 So 1151 115759 09 25 3d 2d La App 2nd Cir writ denied 474 So 945 La 1985 Given the fact 2d that plaintiff himself was the subject of the battery complaint the intentional character of his alteration of the report is likewise self evident Even under the prior jurisprudential definition of misconduct plaintiff conduct s 3 See e La R 14 14 and 40 g S 132 133 AA 2 2401 F exhibited a direct disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employees See Charbonnet v Gerace 457 2d So 676 678 La 1984 After a careful review of the record we conclude that sufficient evidence existed to support the Board factual s finding of misconduct and that the Board decision was justified and legally s correct The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and all costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff appellant Leander Chester Jr This memorandum opinion is issued pursuant to Rule 2 16 of the Uniform B 1 Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal AFFIRMED 0

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.