Scott v. City of New Orleans

• Decision Date: 27 October 2004
• Docket Number: No. 2004-CA-0414.,2004-CA-0414.
• Citation: 888 So.2d 318
• Parties: Randolph SCOTT and RS Security, Inc. v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

888 So.2d 318

Randolph SCOTT and RS Security, Inc. v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 2004-CA-0414.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

October 27, 2004.

Thomas W. Milliner, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Annabelle H. Walker, Deputy City Attorney, Joseph V. DiRosa, Jr., Chief Deputy City Attorney, Sherry S. Landry, City Attorney, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellee.

(Court composed of Judge MICHAEL E. KIRBY, Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD, Judge LEON A. CANNIZZARO JR.).

EDWIN A. LOMBARD, Judge.

Plaintiffs/appellants, Randolph Scott and RS Security, Inc., appeal the judgment of the trial court maintaining the Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action filed by defendant/cross-appellant, the City of New Orleans, entering judgment in favor of defendant/cross-appellant, and dismissing the action filed by plaintiffs/appellants. Defendant/cross-appellant, the City of New Orleans, appeals the trial court's denial of its Exception of Prescription. Upon review, we reverse in part and affirm in part, finding that the action has prescribed.

Relevant Facts

Randolph Scott ("Scott") is employed as an Administrative Analyst in the Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development (DHND) of the City of New Orleans ("the City"). Scott is also sole shareholder in R.S. Security, Inc. ("RSS"), a corporation providing security services to businesses in New Orleans.

In his role as an Administrative Analyst for the City, Scott was the project monitor for Covenant House, a non-profit organization and recipient of federal funds, charged with ensuring Covenant House's compliance with Housing and Urban Development regulations. As agent for RSS, the security company of which he was the sole shareholder, Scott solicited Covenant House for a contract to provide security services. Scott's solicitation was successful and on October 6, 1994, during his negotiations with Covenant House, he advised his supervisor of the potential contract and requested a transfer if this created a conflict of interest. On October 13, 1994, after his request for a transfer was denied, Scott sent an interoffice memorandum to his supervisor's superior requesting a transfer and that the matter be reviewed under the conflict of interest regulations. RSS entered into the contract for security services with Covenant House on October 17, 1994. Scott's supervisors requested advice on the matter from the City Attorney. On December 29, 1994, the City Attorney issued an opinion stating that the contract between RSS and Covenant House violated the City's Home Rule Charter and the City and State Code of Ethics. Based on this opinion, Scott received an ultimatum from DHND dated January 18, 1995, requiring him to: (1) terminate his interest in RSS; (2) resign from his employment with the City; or (3) terminate the contract between Covenant House and RSS. On February 14, 1995, Scott and RSS filed a petition for injunction, preliminary injunction, and temporary restraining order in Civil District Court, seeking to enjoin the City from forcing RSS to terminate the contract through taking or threatening to take disciplinary action against Scott. In response, the City filed an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending that the Civil Service Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary actions taken against classified employees of the City. The trial court sustained the City's exception of lack of jurisdiction and rendered judgment against the plaintiffs on February 17, 1995. RSS did not appeal the trial court decision. The contract between RSS and Covenant House was terminated on February 17, 1995.

Scott filed an appeal with the City Service Commission ("the Commission"). On July 14, 1995, the City filed an exception of no cause of action, alleging that because no disciplinary action had been taken against Scott, the Commission had no grounds upon which to consider an appeal. On January 10, 1996, the Commission maintained the exception of no cause of action, holding that the issue was moot because no disciplinary action had been taken against Scott. On appeal, this court found that the ultimatum made to Scott constituted discipline and, accordingly, reversed the ruling on the exception and remanded the matter to the Commission for a decision on the merits. Scott v. DHND, 97-0636 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/3/97) 703 So.2d 218, writ denied, 98-3/27/98, 716 So.2d 885 ("Scott I").

Subsequently, the Commission ruled that the appointing authority (the City) failed to present any evidence to support charges against Scott of violations of the specific provisions of the Home Rule Charter and ethics codes cited in the City Attorney's opinion, that the contract between RSS and Covenant House was in violation of Sections 42:111(C)(2)(d) and 42:115(a) of the State Code of Ethics, and that Scott failed to prove his claim of political discrimination. On April 26, 2000, this court affirmed the Commission's ruling that the City failed to prove...