Blakemore v. Town of Grambling

• Decision Date: 15 January 2020
• Docket Number: No. 53,135-CA,53,135-CA
• Citation: 289 So.3d 681
• Parties: Kerry BLAKEMORE, Appellant v. TOWN OF GRAMBLING, Appellee
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

289 So.3d 681

Kerry BLAKEMORE, Appellant
v.
TOWN OF GRAMBLING, Appellee

No. 53,135-CA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered January 15, 2020.

G. KARL BERNARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: G. Karl Bernard, Counsel for Appellant

BREEDLOVE LAW FIRM By: Pamela N. Breedlove, Counsel for Appellee

Before MOORE, GARRETT, and COX, JJ.

COX, J.

Kerry Blakemore ("Blakemore") filed suit against the Town of Grambling ("Grambling") alleging wrongful termination against the Grambling Chief of Police and Mayor of Grambling. After five years of litigation, Grambling filed a motion for summary judgment. Blakemore did not file an opposing motion. On January 7, 2019, the 3rd Judicial District Court issued a ruling which granted Grambling's motion. Blakemore appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court's decision.

FACTS

On November 1, 2005, Blakemore accepted a position as a police officer for Grambling. In 2008, Blakemore briefly resigned from the Grambling Police Department and worked for the Morehouse Parish Sheriff's Department. He returned to Grambling later in 2008. According to his personnel file, Blakemore had numerous reprimands or memorandums that led to his dismissal. These reprimands or memorandums as listed in the personnel file are:

• On January 4, 2006, Blakemore was counseled on smoking in the patrol units.

• On January 9, 2006, Blakemore received his first written reprimand for not timely submitting his incident reports.

• On February 7, 2006, Blakemore was reprimanded for failing to follow the proper protocol regarding a theft. According to the written reprimand, Blakemore never advised his supervisor, failed to write a report, and never contacted the Ruston Police. Blakemore then submitted a report on the incident that failed to meet the Grambling Police standards for an incident report.

• On February 14, 2006, Blakemore was again counseled for smoking in the patrol unit. He was to receive a one-day suspension without pay.

• On February 20, 2006, Blakemore was reprimanded for failing to properly turn in a report. When confronted, Blakemore cursed and ignored the orders of a supervising officer. Blakemore received a two-day suspension without pay.

289 So.3d 684

• On May 29, 2006, Blakemore received a written reprimand for failure to attend a mandatory training seminar. He was advised that failure to attend a makeup seminar could lead to his termination.

• On September 27, 2006, Blakemore received a write-up in his personnel file for failing to retrieve his Fuelman receipts and for using premium gas.

• On April 17, 2007, Blakemore was written up for leaving the fuel card and receipts in his patrol car instead of turning in the items to supervising officers.

• On March 1 and May 1, 2008, Blakemore received reprimands for failing to properly submit daily police logs. Blakemore also received another two-day suspension for his insubordination.

• On September 7, 2009, Blakemore was promoted to sergeant.

• On March 2, 2011, he received another reprimand for his failure to properly file an incident report. According to the memo, Blakemore failed to even pull a case name to write the report. In the memo, Chief of Police Tommy Clark stated that it "[was] very unprofessional for another agency to contact [him] over a serious incident in which [Blakemore's] pure laziness and judgment caused the Sherriff's office to abandon the call in which they wrote a full report explaining why."

On November 21, 2011, Blakemore failed to call in to dispatch at any point during his shift. According to Chief Clark, this was something that should never occur. So, on the evening of November 22, when Blakemore was on duty with Officer Richard Otwell, Chief Clark decided to patrol Grambling in order to monitor Blakemore's activity. Chief Clark discovered Blakemore's patrol unit at his residence, and he was unable to locate Officer Otwell within the Town of Grambling. Chief Clark drove past Blakemore's residence three times that evening, and each time Blakemore's patrol vehicle was parked at his residence. Chief Clark recalled that frost had begun to accumulate on the car, indicating that it had been parked for an extended time. Chief Clark was unable to state exactly how long he believed Blakemore remained at his residence, but he noticed that a stalled vehicle was on the main highway and neither Blakemore nor Otwell had called in to dispatch to confirm that they had checked on the vehicle. At this point, Chief Clark attempted to check Blakemore's dispatch logs and daily police reports. Chief Clark was unable to do so because Blakemore had failed to produce an activity report for the prior two months. Chief Clark decided to write up both Officer Otwell and Blakemore individually.

In his meeting with Officer Otwell, Otwell acknowledged that he had become complacent with his work and needed to improve his effort. He also admitted to not patrolling the town on November 22, 2011. Otwell complained that it was hard to patrol the town by himself and that his daily logs would show that when paired with any other supervising officers, his work was satisfactory. When Chief Clark looked through the daily police logs, he confirmed that Otwell was properly patrolling the town when paired with other officers.

On November 29, 2011, Chief Clark met with Blakemore and intended to give him a formal reprimand for his failure to properly patrol and produce daily police logs on November 22. Chief Clark planned to give him a two-day suspension without pay. However, when Chief Clark met with Blakemore on November 29, Blakemore

289 So.3d 685

refused to accept a copy of the formal reprimand and demanded an attorney be present. A predisciplinary hearing was scheduled. On December 6, 2011, Blakemore was placed on administrative leave pending a predisciplinary hearing. He received a letter on December 7 providing notice of the impending hearing.

On January 6, 2012, Grambling conducted a predisciplinary hearing regarding Blakemore. At the hearing, Daphne Mathis, the dispatcher on duty on November 21, 2011, testified first. In her testimony, she confirmed that Blakemore did not call in to dispatch for the entire shift. Additionally, Mathis stated that while officers do occasionally go home, they call in before going home and also call when they leave their home.

Next, Officer Otwell testified. In his testimony, he stated that he was working on November 21, 2011, with Sergeant Blakemore, but he did not see Blakemore patrolling the town during the shift. Officer Otwell said that when on shifts with other officers, he sees these officers patrolling or "running traffic." He agreed that he consistently saw less of Blakemore on shifts compared to other supervising officers with whom he had worked. Otwell confirmed that if one of the two officers on duty does not patrol the town, it places more work on the other officer and makes the shift more difficult.

Chief Clark then testified and confirmed that Blakemore failed to produce any daily police logs for the months of October and November. Additionally, when looking at the dispatch logs of the dispatcher during Blakemore's shifts, Chief Clark noticed they were much shorter than shifts of other officers. This indicated to Chief Clark that Blakemore was not patrolling the town while on duty or providing adequate backup to officers, because he was calling in incidents to dispatchers. Chief Clark also pointed out that Blakemore would issue far fewer citations than other officers, confirming that he was not patrolling the town. Chief Clark also testified that during Blakemore's suspension, he was supposed to report to be fitted for a bulletproof vest. Blakemore failed to attend the fitting. Chief Clark stated that he allows officers to go home briefly for bathroom breaks and even to occasionally eat a meal, but they are expected to not stay at their homes. Chief Clark characterized Blakemore's habits as a "dereliction of duty."

Finally, Blakemore testified. He claimed that he did not know how long would be an appropriate time to be at his home, he refused to provide a definition of backup, and argued over what would be considered quickly arriving at a crime scene. Blakemore admitted that he went to his house every day while he was on duty. He claimed that he would not be at home long, but refused to give a time limit as to how long he would stay. He said that typically he would eat and watch television, or do some of his daily officer reports, while at home. He also acknowledged that he would not always contact dispatch and inform them that he was going home. He also admitted he had not completed his daily police reports for the past two months. He believed that as a supervisor he was not required to do reports, though he did agree that none of the other supervisors had advised him he was not required to write reports. He provided no explanation for what he was doing or how long he was at his home on November 22, 2011. Following the hearing, Chief Clark terminated Blakemore's employment.

Following his termination, Blakemore appealed to the Mayor of Grambling, Edward Jones, who reviewed the audiotapes of the hearing and all the documents that were reviewed during the investigation.

289 So.3d 686

...