Smith v. City of Ruston
| Citation | 7 So.3d 44 |
| Decision Date | 04 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 44,018-CA.,44,018-CA. |
| Parties | Jeffrey B. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF RUSTON, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
Hurley, Marcotte, Rhodes & Hussey by Lydia M. Rhodes, Shreveport, William S. Carter, Jr., Ruston, for Appellants, City of Ruston and Dan Hollingsworth.
Broussard, Bolton, Halcomb & Vizzier by Daniel E. Broussard, Jr., Alexandria, for Appellees.
Before BROWN, WILLIAMS, and DREW, JJ.
Plaintiffs are 35 current and former firefighters who filed this petition against the City of Ruston and its mayor for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages grounded in wage and vacation disputes.
The parties and the trial court agreed to a bifurcation of the trial. The declaratory judgment/injunctive relief or liability phase would be tried first. In the initial phase, the trial court heard evidence of the firefighters' work schedules and the City's pay policies and made certain initial judgments regarding the application of Louisiana statutory law. These findings were affirmed by this court in Smith v. City of Ruston, 42,281 (La.App.2d Cir.06/20/07), 960 So.2d 1246. This court noted, however, that the trial court failed to address in the liability phase how to calculate, pursuant to La. R.S. 33:1992(A),1 the differential pay between the beginning firefighters and the plaintiffs who are higher ranking firefighters. The differential is a monthly minimum salary difference for ranks rather than an hourly wage difference. On remand, the trial court held that the differential pay of the plaintiffs was to be determined without "including any additional pay to plaintiffs such as longevity, state supplemental pay, EMT pay, and current year two percent longevity pay." This judgment was designated as final under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B). It is from this judgment that the City of Ruston has appealed.
The issue is whether the City complied with the minimum salary requirement mandated by La. R.S. 33:1992(A). Subsection (A) of La. R.S. 33:1992 sets forth minimum salaries to be paid to each rank of firefighter. The statute directs that the higher-ranking employees' minimum salaries are to be a specified percentage above the minimum monthly salary of a beginning fireman. Specifically, La. R.S. 33:1992(A) provides:
The minimum monthly salaries of firemen in municipalities having a population of twelve thousand or more and of all parish and fire protection district paid firemen, including salaries payable out of the avails of any special tax provided by the Constitution of Louisiana for increasing the pay of firemen, shall be in accordance with the following schedule, and such salaries shall be paid semi-monthly not later than the fifth and twentieth day of each calendar month:
(1) A fireman shall receive a minimum monthly salary of four hundred dollars per month.
(2) Engineers shall receive a minimum monthly salary of not less than ten percent above that of a fireman.
(3) Lieutenants shall receive a minimum monthly salary of not less than fifteen percent above that of a fireman.
(4) Captains shall receive a minimum monthly salary of not less than twenty-five percent above that of a fireman.
(5) Battalion chiefs and district chiefs shall receive a minimum monthly salary of not less than forty percent above that of a fireman.
(6) Assistant chiefs and deputy chiefs shall receive a minimum monthly salary of not less than fifty percent above that of a fireman.
(7) A mechanic or assistant mechanic, or any other person doing this type of work for the fire department, shall receive a minimum monthly salary of not less than twenty-five percent above that of a fireman.
(8) A superintendent of fire alarm system, or any other person doing this type of work for the fire department, shall receive a minimum monthly salary of not less than forty percent above that of a fireman.
(9) A fire alarm operator or dispatcher, or any other person doing this type of work for the fire department, shall receive a minimum monthly salary of not less than twenty-five percent above that of a fireman.
(10) A fire inspector shall receive a minimum monthly salary of not less than twenty-five percent above that of a fireman.
(11) For the city of Shreveport only, the provisions of R.S. 33:1992(9) shall apply only to present employees of the city of Shreveport Fire Department and shall not be applicable to any person employed by the city of Shreveport Fire Department after September 1, 1986.
(12) The provisions of R.S. 33:1992(A)(9) shall not be applicable to any person employed by the city of Morgan City.
Subsection (B) of La. R.S. 33:1992 also provides for annual longevity increases for those firefighters having served between three and twenty years. This increase is at a rate of two percent each year and is computed on both base and longevity pay.
Beginning firefighters were paid an entry level sum plus $150 a month EMT pay (also called education or ambulance pay) even if they had not obtained the EMT certification. The trial court initially held that the minimum monthly salary of a beginning fireman would be his or her base pay plus the $150 monthly EMT pay. This was the benchmark pay or salary for computation of the differential pay. The higher ranking fireman would get the specified percentage above this salary.
The City argues that the total pay of the higher ranking fireman, which would include state supplemental pay, longevity pay, EMT pay, and accrued longevity pay, should be calculated. If the total pay of these firemen equals or exceeds the percentage difference required by La. R.S. 33:1992(A), then there would be no increase owed.
Plaintiffs emphasize that the statute addresses minimum monthly salaries of firemen, not maximum salaries. If the City's position were to be adopted, a fireman who has worked several years and receives supplemental pay, longevity, etc. and is promoted to driver might receive no increase in pay. The City's interpretation would entail use of the accrued longevity and supplemental pay as the 10% differential. Plaintiffs emphasize that historically in calculating and paying the differential, the City has used the base pay of a beginning firefighter and has paid such a driver the 10% differential as set forth in the statute.
Although both parties cited cases in support of their respective positions, as noted by the trial court in its written reasons for judgment, "[a]lthough other cases indirectly address the pay differential issue, there is no specific directive on how the differential should be calculated." See Alamond v. City of Shreveport, 39,514 (La.App.2d Cir.04/06/05), 900 So.2d 277 (); Turner v. City of Shreveport, 437 So.2d 961 (La.App. 2d Cir.1983) (); Williams v. City of West Monroe, 403 So.2d 842 (La. App. 2d Cir.1981) (); Bailey v. City of Lafayette, 05-29 (La.App. 3d Cir.06/01/05), 904 So.2d 922, writ denied, 05-1690 (La.01/09/06), 918 So.2d 1054 (); Hayes v. City of Alexandria, 629 So.2d 435 (La.App. 3d Cir.1993) (); Haskin v. City of Lafayette, 613 So.2d 1015 (La.App. 3d Cir.1993) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W. Monroe Firefighters Local 1385 v. City of W. Monroe
...court's decisions in Smith v. City of Ruston, 42,281 (La.App.2d Cir.06/20/07), 960 So.2d 1246 (Smith I ); and Smith v. City of Ruston, 44,018 (La.App.2d Cir.03/04/09), 7 So.3d 44,writ denied,09–0773 (La.05/22/09), 9 So.3d 149 (Smith II ), in support of its argument that the trial court erro......
- Worley v. Chandler