Louisiana Appeals Court Upholds Denial of Promotion

The Louisiana Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling in a promotional challenge case from the Kenner Fire Department. The case involves the fire chief’s decision to deny Joseph Sunseri a promotion to Assistant Fire Chief, following some difficulties he encountered while serving in the position during a “working test period”.  

According to the chief, Sunseri served unsuccessfully in the position provisionally, having received two written reprimands during the time period in question (September 2018-September 2019). Sunseri appealed the chief’s decision to the Kenner Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board, who ordered him reinstated to the assistant chief’s position on a 4-1 vote.

While the board did not issue a formal ruling, the basis for the overturning the chief’s decision appears to be the failure of the city to comply with a Louisiana statute (La. R.S. § 33:2495) that mandates that police and firefighters be given a fair opportunity to prove their ability in a position by serving a “working test period,” and if rejected they must be provided with a signed statement confirming their rejection and the reasons for it. According to Sunseri, the fire chief never provided him with the written statement when he was rejected.

The city appealed the board’s decision to the 24th Judicial District Court, who overturned the board and reinstated the fire chief’s decision to deny Sunseri the promotion. Sunseri then appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals explained its reasoning for upholding the fire chief and the district court as follows:

• Mr. Sunseri contends that Kenner’s “failure to provide the signed statement to Sunseri deprived him of the due process he is owed under La. R.S. 33:2495 and his opportunity to even grasp what specifically he could or could not appeal.”
• Mr. Sunseri urges that La. R.S. 33:2495(B)(2)(c) mandates that his appointment be confirmed in this instance where Kenner did not provide him with a written statement advising him of its refusal to confirm him in the position of Assistant Fire Chief.
• Mr. Sunseri urges that, because Kenner refused to comply with the letter of the law, he should have been confirmed as Assistant Chief.
• The record shows that Mr. Sunseri timely received two reprimands, which were entered into evidence at the hearing. Kenner had valid grounds to reject his appointment before the six-month mark of his test period had passed pursuant to La. R.S. 33:2495(B)(2)(a) or (b).
• Therefore, we must reject Mr. Sunseri’s assertion that Kenner’s apparent failure to follow the letter of the law pursuant to La. R.S. 33:2495(C) should result in his confirmation.
• [W]e find that the district court’s determination that the Board committed manifest error, and its judgment reversing the ruling of the Board that granted Mr. Sunseri’s appeal, were correct.
• Last, without evidence to support allegations that he did not have a fair opportunity to prove his ability in the position, pursuant to La. R.S. 33:2495(B)(2)(c), we find that Mr. Sunseri had no other basis to appeal Kenner’s refusal to confirm his appointment as Assistant Fire Chief after the completion of his working test period.

Here is a copy of the decision: