Oubre v. St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office

• Decision Date: 14 December 2016
• Docket Number: NO. 16–CA–409,16–CA–409
• Citation: 209 So.3d 302
• Parties: Ricky L. OUBRE v. ST. CHARLES PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE & Sheriff Greg Champagne (In His Official Capacity)
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

209 So.3d 302

Ricky L. OUBRE
v.
ST. CHARLES PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE & Sheriff Greg Champagne (In His Official Capacity)

NO. 16–CA–409

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

December 14, 2016

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, RICKY L. OUBRE, Donald L. Hyatt, II

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, ST. CHARLES PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE & SHERIFF GREG CHAMPAGNE (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY), I. Harold Koretzky, Russell L. Foster

Panel composed of Susan M. Chehardy, Jude G. Gravois, and Hans J. Liljeberg

GRAVOIS, J.

Plaintiff/appellant, Ricky L. Oubre, appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of defendants, the St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office ("the Sheriff's Office") and Sheriff Greg Champagne, in his official capacity, dismissing Mr. Oubre's suit which sought a writ of mandamus and a determination that he was eligible for certain health and life insurance benefits to be paid for by the Sheriff's Office. For the

209 So.3d 304

following reasons, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 6, 2015, Mr. Oubre filed suit against the Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Champagne, alleging that as a retiree of the Sheriff's Office, he was entitled to certain health and life insurance benefits to be paid for by the Sheriff's Office for himself and his wife under La. R.S. 13:5554.

The record reflects that Mr. Oubre was employed by the Sheriff's Office almost continuously from October 1, 1982 until he was terminated from the Sheriff's Office on February 8, 2013. Prior to his termination, in late 2012 and early 2013, Mr. Oubre and the Sheriff's Office were engaged in an employment dispute which was ultimately settled in January 2013. The settlement, which was consummated in a January 21, 2013 letter from the Sheriff's Office's attorney to Mr. Oubre's former counsel (and which was approved and signed by Mr. Oubre's former counsel on January 22, 2013) provided that Mr. Oubre would the next day submit in writing his notification and paperwork to the Sheriff's Office confirming that he would be "retiring" approximately four weeks later, on February 17, 2013, and would use his accumulated vacation leave for the final four weeks of his employment with the Sheriff's Office. However, prior to the end of said four-week period, Mr. Oubre was terminated from employment with the Sheriff's Office on February 8, 2013, for alleged misconduct which occurred during said four-week period, as detailed in a February 8, 2013 termination letter from the Sheriff's Office to Mr. Oubre.

Mr. Oubre did not reach retirement eligibility age under state law until February 16, 2014 and began receiving pension benefits thereafter once he applied for such benefits and his eligibility status was confirmed by the Louisiana Sheriff's Pension and Relief Fund. However, Mr. Oubre's application to the Sheriff's Office to receive health and life insurance benefits from the Sheriff's Office, pursuant to La. R.S. 13:5554, was denied by the Sheriff's Office, based upon its determination that under La. R.S. 13:5554(O) and La. R.S. 13:5554(T), an applicant must have retired directly from the Sheriff's Office in order to be eligible for such insurance benefits. The Sheriff's Office took the position that Mr. Oubre had been terminated from the Sheriff's Office, rather than having retired therefrom, and thus was not eligible under La. R.S. 13:5554(O) and La. R.S. 13:5554(T) for said insurance benefits.

In his suit, Mr. Oubre sought a writ of mandamus against Sheriff Champagne ordering him to comply with La. R.S. 13:5554. He also asserted in his petition that he "dispute[d] the reasons given in the papers contained in his records for [his] termination, and [did] not waive any right to dispute the reasons given, but view[ed] those reasons as irrelevant for the present dispute."

After discovery, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting their position that under La. R.S. 13:5554(O) and La. R.S. 13:5554(T), an applicant must have retired directly from the Sheriff's Office in order to be eligible for said insurance benefits. Defendants framed the issue as a straight-forward question of statutory interpretation: Does La. R.S. 13:5554(O) and La. R.S. 13:5554(T) require the Sheriff's Office to pay health and life insurance premiums for all former employees entitled to pension benefits, regardless of how the former employee's employment came to an end, or does it only provide coverage to those

209 So.3d 305

employees who retire directly from the Sheriff's Office ?

Mr. Oubre filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, arguing that he had a "contract for employment of limited duration" with the Sheriff's Office and that the Sheriff's Office breached the contract by terminating him without "good cause." He also argued that since he was entitled to receive pension benefits pursuant to La. R.S. 11:2171, et seq. , he was also entitled to receive insurance benefits under La. R.S. 13:5554.

In a reply memorandum, the Sheriff's Office argued that the issue of whether Mr. Oubre's termination from the Sheriff's Office was wrongful was not before the Court in the motion for summary judgment, as Mr. Oubre's petition asserted that the reasons for his termination were "irrelevant for the present dispute."

The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion for summary judgment on October 13, 2015, and after taking the matter under advisement, rendered judgment on February 23, 2016 granting the motion for summary judgment, dismissing Mr. Oubre's claims with prejudice. In extensive reasons for judgment issued on January 22, 2016, the trial court found that La. R.S. 13:5554(O) and La. R.S. 13:5554(T) indicate that Mr. Oubre "must be both retired from [the Sheriff's Office] and [be] entitled to receive pension benefits to be entitled to insurance coverage." The trial court further found that in his petition, Mr. Oubre based his claims on the interpretation of La. R.S. 13:5554, and had "belatedly" attempted to challenge the reasons for his termination in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, despite initially alleging that those reasons were irrelevant to the suit. The trial court accordingly denied Mr. Oubre's claims "as a matter of law," finding that he had not demonstrated that defendants' denial of the insurance benefits in question was done in bad faith; rather, the denial was based on a correct reading of the statutes...