Brumfield v. Bookter et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 26 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 11/12/14. (KDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PRENTISS A. BRUMFIELD

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 3:13-CV-00142

ANNETTE BOOKTER, IN HER INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AND AS
DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES FOR
THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, WILLIAM
B. DANIEL, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE
CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND PARISH OF
EAST BATON ROUGE, PERSONNEL BOARD
OF THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND THE
PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, AND THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BATON ROUGE AND THE PARISH OF EAST
BATON ROUGE
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff, Prentiss A. Brumfield’s, Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. 26.) Defendants have filed an opposition. (Doc. 30.) Oral argument was held on
Monday, November 10, 2014.
It is undisputed that as a permanent classified Civil Service employee, Plaintiff had a
property interest in continued employment absent cause. (Doc. 1, p. 4.) Plaintiff alleges the City
deprived him of his right to continued employment without due process of law by refusing his
repeated requests for a post-termination hearing before the City/Parish Personnel Board. (Doc. 1,
p. 4.)
Defendants claim that there is no reliable evidence to show that Plaintiff’s appeal for a posttermination hearing was timely filed. (Doc. 30-1.) Defendants claim that their denial of Plaintiff’s
post-termination hearing was due to his request for a post-termination hearing being misplaced and

that this mistake was in no way intentional. (Doc. 30-1 and Oral Argument, November 10, 2014.)
Defendants argue that their conduct does not rise to the level of a policy, procedure or practice. (Oral
argument, November 10, 2014.)
Plaintiff counters by arguing that even if the initial failure to grant Plaintiff’s request for a
post-termination proceeding was the result of mistake or inadvertence, Defendants’ continued failure
to grant Plaintiff’s request for a post-termination hearing after they became aware of their mistake
or inadvertence constitutes an intentional decision to deprive him of a constitutionally protected
right. (Oral Argument, November 10, 2014.)
After reading the briefs and hearing the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that the
Plaintiff has established the following points as a matter of law:
1. Plaintiff has a property interest in his employment sufficient to entitle him to due
process protection,
2. Plaintiff timely filed for appeal on March 30, 2012, and
3. Plaintiff was not given a date for a post-termination hearing until recently.
These facts are not genuinely in dispute and have been established in this case. Fed. R. Civ.
Proc. 56(g).
However, there are questions of fact regarding whether the failure to provide the hearing was
inadvertent and a mere mistake or intentional and, if intentional, whether the decision to deny the
hearing was made by a person or persons with sufficient authority to render the decision one of
policy, custom or practice. The Court finds that there is a material issue of fact as to whether
Defendants’ “conduct is directly attributable to the municipality through some sort of official action
or imprimatur.” Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment must be denied at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on November 12, 2014.

S
JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA