Cottingham v. Department of Revenue, State of La.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1957
• Docket Number: No. 42503,42503
• Citation: Cottingham v. Department of Revenue, State of La., 94 So.2d 662, 232 La. 546 (La. 1957)
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: Eugene B. COTTINGHAM v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF LOUISIANA.

Page 662

94 So.2d 662

232 La. 546

Eugene B. COTTINGHAM v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF LOUISIANA.

No. 42503.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 1957.

McKeithen, Mouser & McKinley, Monroe, for appellant.

Robert L. Roland, Levi A. Himes, Chapman L. Sanford, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

In this case there is presented for review a unanimous ruling of the Louisiana Civil Service Commission rendered on an appeal to that body by a dismissed state employee. The ruling and the reasons therefor, which were assigned in writing, read as follows:

'Eugene B. Cottingham, appellant, an Investigator I in the classified service of the Department of Revenue, was discharged effective December 31, 1954. The causes for this action were communicated to appellant in a letter dated December 16, 1954, charging substantially:

'1. That in a written application to the Department of State Civil Service, dated June 30, 1954, he denied having ever been a defendant in a criminal proceeding, whereas court records show that on October 3, 1947 he had pleaded guilty to violation of the Sunday Closing Law and was sentenced to pay a fine of $75 or serve 30 days in jail.

'2. That while employed in a position of confidence and trust he conducted himself in such manner that on November 23, 1954, members of the State Police preferred charges of public bribery against him.

'On December 27, 1954 appellant requested a hearing before this Commission without specifying any ground of complaint. By a subsequent letter, three days later, he denied 'falsifying' the application but admitted an error through oversight due to conditions that he wished to discuss at a hearing, which was originally fixed for February 5, 1955. By joint motion this fixing was upset, and was later fixed for March 28, 1955, at which time the parties were heard.

'At the opening of the hearing appellant excepted to the sufficiency of the notice of discharge and moved for a summary decree maintaining his appeal.

'The Commission denied the motion, but ruled out the second charge for insufficient specification to justly put the burden of proof on these facts upon appellant.

'The parties have stipulated that appellant was charged on October 3, 1947 with violating the Sunday Closing Law by dispensing intoxicating liquor on a Sunday; that on that date he waived arraignment, pleaded guilty, was sentenced to pay a fine of $75 and costs or serve 30 days in jail, and paid the fine and costs.

'Appellant admits that on June 30, 1954, while holding his position as Investigator I in the Department of Revenue, he made written application to take an examination for the position of Investigator II in the classified service of the State; and that he answered 'no' to the question designed to reveal the subject matter of the stipulation.

'He obtained no appointment under the examination taken pursuant to his aforesaid application.

'When he signed said application he was emotionally disturbed by the serious illness of a brother. He testified that the offense which he did not reveal imported no moral turpitude, and that it escaped his memory at the time.

'There is no evidence that at any time between June 30, 1954 and December 16, 1954, appellant made any attempt to correct the erroneous answer made in his application.

'The Collector of Revenue established that the position of Investigator in his Department requires men of the highest probity; that as part of his duties appellant had been required to examine into the character of applicants for liquor licenses.

'If appellant willfully made the false statement in his application, he would be guilty of a misdemeanor under Pars. (N)(4) and (P)(3) of the Civil Service Amendment (Const. Art. XIV, Section 15). It is not necessary in a dismissal case that the employee's conduct be shown to have constituted a misdemeanor in order to justify his discharge. An employee whose conduct, whether willful or only negligent, convicts him of untrustworthiness, can find no shelter in the law to protect his employment. The purpose of all civil service laws regulating the discharge of employees is to insure good public service by experienced employees and to protect the faithful, honest and competent from removal for unworthy causes.

'The admitted facts constitute sufficient cause for appellant's discharge, and his appeal is dismissed.'

Pertinent to our review of such ruling are provisions contained in Article 14, Section 15 of the Louisiana Constitution, relating to both state and city civil service, which recite: '(N) (1) No person in the State or Classified Service, having acquired permanent Civil Service status, shall be demoted, dismissed, or discriminated against, except for cause, expressed in writing by the appointing authority. (a) The burden of proof on appeal, as to the facts, shall be on the employee.

'(O)(1) There is vested in the State Civil Service Commission and in the appropriate Civil Service Commissions for the several cities respectively the exclusive right to hear and decide all appeals and the legality of all removal and disciplinary cases. The decision of the appropriate ...