Moreau v. St Landry Parish Fire District No 3

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM RULING re 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Ryan Chachere. Signed by Judge Terry A Doughty on 7/31/2019. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION

JOSEPH LARRY MOREAU, JR.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-00532

VERSUS

JUDGE TERRY DOUGHTY

ST. LANDRY PARISH FIRE DISTRICT
NO. 3, ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE WHITEHURST

RULING
This is a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Joseph Larry Moreau, Jr. (“Moreau”) against St. Landry
Fire Protection District No. 3 (“District 3”) and the seven individual members of the Board of
Commissioners. Moreau brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that his civil
rights were violated because he was terminated in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment
rights.
On November 9, 2018, Defendant Ryan Chachere’s (“Chachere”) filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 21]. Chachere, a member of the Board of Commissioners, moved
the Court to dismiss all claims against him because he did not attend the Board of Commissioners
meeting when the members voted to terminate Moreau.

Moreau opposed the Motion for

Summary Judgment by filing an affidavit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). [Doc. No. 23]. The Court
agreed with Moreau that summary judgment was premature and ruled as follows: “Chachere’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 21] is DENIED at this time, subject to re-urging once
appropriate discovery has been conducted.” [Doc. No. 30, p. 5].
On July 3, 2019, Chachere filed the pending Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 39]

in which he asserts that discovery has been conducted and the discovery deadline has now passed.
Therefore, he re-urges his right to summary judgment.
On July 29, 2019, Moreau filed a Response to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment
which states, “Plaintiff, Larry Moreau, does not oppose Defendant Ryan Chachere’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, R. Doc. 39”. [Doc. No. 52].
I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On or about January 8, 2018, the Vermillion Parish School Board (“the School Board”)

held a meeting during which a Vermillion Parish school teacher attempted to question the members
about a potential raise for the superintendent. The School Board had a police officer remove the
teacher from the meeting. She was handcuffed and taken to jail.
Moreau’s wife is a school teacher, and a friend of his commented on Moreau’s Facebook
page about the incident. Moreau responded as follows:
[A]ll of this going on with this poor teacher being treated so unfairly makes one
thing perfectly clear. . . These “boards” everywhere, ruled by good old boy politics
need to be dissolved ASAP..!!
We have the same exact problem at our fire
department . . . A board of clueless idiots making the decisions that affect many
including the very employees that actually do the job.. It’s a joke . . [. . .]. I hope
this teacher makes them pay...and pay big time.!!
[Doc. No. 1, ¶ 12].
On March 20, 2018, the Board of Commissioners voted to terminate Moreau. On or about
March 21, 2018, the Board of Commissioners notified Moreau that it had terminated his
employment with District 3 because of his “disparaging remarks” about the Board of
Commissioners on Facebook.
Chachere contends that Moreau was present at the meeting and, thus, knows that Chachere
was not present and did not vote on his termination. Chachere further contends that he was unable
2

to attend the March 20, 2018 meeting due to the death of a friend’s father; that prior to the meeting
he did not speak with anybody about participating in the deliberation regarding Moreau’s
discipline; that he did not talk to anybody about what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken
against Moreau; that he in no way participated in the decision to terminate Moreau; and after the
meeting he did not speak to any of the other BOC members regarding their termination of Moreau
or their reasons for doing so.
II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
A.

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment Ashall [be] grant[ed] . . . if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.@ FED. R.
CIV. P. 56(a). A fact is Amaterial@ if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the
outcome of the lawsuit under applicable law in the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is Agenuine@ if the evidence is such that a
reasonable fact finder could render a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
If the moving party can meet the initial burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving
party to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Norman v. Apache
Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1023 (5th Cir. 1994). The nonmoving party must show more than Asome
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.@ Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In evaluating the evidence tendered by the parties, the Court
must accept the evidence of the nonmovant as credible and draw all justifiable inferences in its
favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.

3

B.

Liability

To establish a prima facie First Amendment retaliation claim, plaintiff must show, inter
alia, that he suffered an adverse employment action and that the adverse employment action was
motivated by speech which is protected under the First Amendment. Harris v. Victoria
Independent School District,168 F.3d 216, 220 (5th Cir. 1999). In the case of individual
defendants, this means that plaintiff must show that the individual defendant took adverse
employment action against him. See e.g., Angel v. La Joya Indep. Sch. Dist., 717 F. App’x 372,
377 (5th Cir. 2017). Informal decisions such as an agreement among members of a Board can be
adverse employment decisions. Juarez v. Aguilar, 666 F.3d 325, 334 (5thCir. 2011).
In order to establish a §1983 procedural due process claim, plaintiff must show: (1) that he
was deprived of a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) that the
process attendant to the deprivation was constitutionally deficient. Ky. Dep't of Corr. v. Thompson,
490 U.S. 454, 460, (1989); 667 F.3d 591, 601 (5th Cir.2012). In this employment case, Moreau’s
alleged protected property interest is in his civil service employment at District 3. His procedural
due process claim, therefore, also revolves around the adverse employment action that District 3’s
BOC took against him.
It is undisputed that Chachere was not present at the March 20, 2018 meeting and did not
vote to terminate Moreau. He did not enter into any agreements regarding, or even discuss, possible
disciplinary action against Moreau. Chachere did not know that Moreau was the subject of any
investigation request nor did he know any of the underlying factual details. Under these undisputed
facts, Moreau cannot establish the elements of his First Amendment and procedural due process
claims as to Chachere.
4

Accordingly, Chachere is entitled to summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ.P. 56.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Chachere’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 39] is
GRANTED. Moreau’s claims against Chachere are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 31st day of July, 2019.

TERRY A. DOUGHTY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5