Thompson v. Jackson Parish Police Jury

• Decision Date: 23 October 2002
• Docket Number: No. 36,497-CA.,36,497-CA.
• Citation: 830 So.2d 505
• Parties: Yoshi Chambers THOMPSON, Plaintiff-App ell ant, v. JACKSON PARISH POLICE JURY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

830 So.2d 505

Yoshi Chambers THOMPSON, Plaintiff-App ell ant, v. JACKSON PARISH POLICE JURY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 36,497-CA.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

October 23, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Hammonds & Sills, by Jon K. Guice, Monroe, Oscar P. Barnes, III, for Appellant.

Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell, by Sam N. Poole, Jr., Trevor S. Fry, Alexandria, for Appellees.

Before GASKINS, KOSTELKA and DREW, JJ.

GASKINS, J.

The plaintiff, Yoshi Chambers Thompson, appeals from a trial court judgment granting the exception of res judicata filed by defendants, the Jackson Parish Police Jury (JPPJ) and David McManus. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

Ms. Thompson was employed by the JPPJ as a scale clerk at the Jackson Parish landfill. Her duties included the weighing of vehicles entering and leaving the landfill as well as routine office management. In 1996, Ms. Thompson signed an agreement with the JPPJ to comply with the JPPJ's drug and alcohol policy. This policy provided, in pertinent part:

3.02 JACKSON PARISH POLICE JURY EMPLOYEES

Employees of the Jackson Parish Police Jury shall be required to submit to alcohol and drug screening [sic ] test in the following instances:

1. As part of a random screening without prior notification of date or time.

. . . .

5. PENALTIES

Failure to comply with the intent of the policies and procedures set forth therein shall result in the employee being subject to suspension or termination of his/ her employment.

It is mandatory that any employee whose name is on the random list shall indeed be tested that day regardless of circumstances (except in the case of severe illness and vacations out of town). Failure to comply will result in the automatic termination of employment.

On November 17, 1997, Ms. Thompson was at home on her day off. Early that morning her supervisor, Jimmy Pylant, called her and told her to come into work to submit to a random drug screening. According to Mr. Pylant, Ms. Thompson told him that her car had no antifreeze but she would be in later that morning. About 35 minutes later, when Ms. Thompson had not arrived, Mr. Pylant called Ms. Thompson again. Pylant said that Ms. Thompson's husband, Leslie Thompson, (a member of the JPPJ) answered the phone and said that Ms. Thompson could not come in because her car was inoperable. Ms. Thompson was unable to find a ride to her work place that day because the people she ordinarily rode with had already gone to work. Ms. Thompson apparently offered to submit to the drug test at her home, but the tester did not go to Ms. Thompson's home.

Mr. Pylant reported Ms. Thompson to the JPPJ and, upon the recommendation of the JPPJ, Mr. Pylant suspended Ms. Thompson without pay until a final decision could be made regarding her continued employment. On December 15, 1997, the JPPJ voted to terminate Ms. Thompson's employment and she was fired.

In addition to the missed drug test, the termination of Ms. Thompson had another component. According to the testimony of Dr. Charles Garrett, a member of the personnel committee, the JPPJ also planned to "reorganize" Ms. Thompson's job because "she was spending all of her time inside. That was all she was doing, was running the scales and weighing stuff and we decided to reorganize the office job." After Ms. Thompson was fired, the JPPJ hired another woman who performed Ms. Thompson's duties and, in addition, worked outside. This new employee had a commercial drivers' license and operated a "boom truck." After this replacement left the employ of the JPPJ, another replacement was hired who did not have a commercial drivers' license, but who also worked outside.

After she was fired, Ms. Thompson applied for unemployment benefits. Initially, the JPPJ opposed the payment of benefits on the grounds that she had been terminated for misconduct. The JPPJ claimed that it was approached on behalf of Ms. Thompson in an effort to settle the matter. On December 15, 1997 (JPPJ) and December 18, 1997 (Ms. Thompson), the parties entered into an agreement concerning her termination, her unemployment benefits and her litigious rights against the JPPJ. The agreement specified in part:

WHEREAS EMPLOYER believes that the actions of EMPLOYEE have been such as would fully justify the termination of her employment for cause, including but not limited to failure to comply with EMPLOYER's personnel policy; and

WHEREAS EMPLOYEE believes that she has not done or failed to do anything that would justify the termination of her employment and that the termination of her employment would be without just and constitutional cause; and

WHEREAS the very real possibility exists that, within the near future, the position that EMPLOYEE has with EMPLOYER will have to be eliminated due to changes in the operational and employment needs of EMPLOYER, which will result in the termination of EMPLOYEE's employment without regard to her job performance or lack of the same:

APPEARERS HAVE AGREED that the JACKSON PARISH POLICE JURY will terminate EMPLOYEE's employment effective IMMEDIATELY based upon its need to eliminate the position in which she is presently employed and will not oppose EMPLOYEE's efforts to obtain unemployment benefits as the result of her termination by alleging that said termination was for cause in exchange for which agreement MRS. YOSHI CHAMBERS THOMPSON agrees that she does, by these presents, hereby agree not to file legal proceedings of any kind against the JACKSON PARISH POLICE JURY, its individual jurors or its employees alleging that the termination of her employment was for any reason prohibited by the laws or constitutions of the United States or the State of Louisiana.

APPEARER MRS. YOSHI CHAMBERS THOMPSON further acknowledges that her signature constitutes a waiver of certain of her legal rights, that she has been free to consult with an attorney prior to her signing this document, which was prepared by counsel for EMPLOYER, that she fully understands the consequences of this legal act and had obtained, prior to signing the same, such legal or other advice as she deems appropriate.

The JPPJ evidently informed the Louisiana Department of Labor (LDOL) that Ms. Thompson had been terminated because a reorganization terminated her position. Ms. Thompson subsequently received unemployment benefits. In March 1998, the JPPJ removed from its personnel policies the provision that requires the termination of any employee who does not appear for a drug test.

On December 14, 1998, Ms. Thompson filed a civil suit against the JPPJ and David McManus, the JPPJ president. She alleged that her termination was based upon her failure to attend the drug test and that her termination was a violation of her rights under the federal and state constitutions. She claimed that requiring her to undergo drug testing, in the absence of any allegations of wrongdoing on her part, amounted to an invasion of privacy. She also alleged that the JPPJ policy was illegal, that the JPPJ jurors were liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they acted under color of state law and that they failed to implement a reasonable drug testing policy. After answering the petition, the defendants filed exceptions of prescription and res judicata.

On January 17, 2002, the court held a hearing on these exceptions. The court rejected the exception of prescription, but granted the exception of res judicata, essentially finding that the parties entered into an agreement to settle all claims by the plaintiff regarding her termination. On February 4, 2002, the court signed a judgment granting the exception of res judicata and dismissing Ms. Thompson's lawsuit. Ms. Thompson now appeals.

Ms. Thompson claims that the trial court erred in granting the defendant's exception of res judicata, because the decision was based upon an agreement for which there was no consideration. She also asserts that her consent to the agreement was vitiated by the actions of the defendants. In the alternative, the plaintiff argues that the trial court committed reversible error by dismissing claims asserted by the plaintiff which were not addressed in the agreement upon which the exception was based. Also in the alternative, she urges that the trial court committed reversible error by dismissing her claims without affording her an opportunity to amend her petition to remove the grounds upon which the exception had been granted.

LACK OF CONSIDERATION

Ms. Thompson argues that her agreement with the JPPJ is unenforceable because she received nothing in exchange for her agreement not to sue. She asserts that the JPPJ was not empowered by statute to implement a random drug testing policy of employees in positions that are not safety or security sensitive. Thus, she contends that the JPPJ could not have terminated her for misconduct related to her employment and she would rightly have been entitled to unemployment benefits even in the absence of the compromise. The plaintiff claims that the compromise is unenforceable because she had nothing to gain by signing the agreement. This argument is without merit.

A transaction or compromise is an agreement between two or more persons, who, for preventing or putting an end to a lawsuit, adjust their differences by mutual consent, in the manner which they agree on, and which every one of them prefers to the hope of gaining, balanced by the danger of losing. La. C.C. art. 3071.

Transactions regulate only the differences which appear clearly to be comprehended in them by the intention of the parties, whether it be explained in a general or particular manner, unless it be the necessary consequence of what is expressed. They do not extend to differences which the parties never intended to include in them. The renunciation, which is made therein to all rights, claims and pretensions, extends only to what relates to the differences on which the transaction arises. La. C.C. art....