college night watchman responsible for counseling students who displayed improper conduct fired for operating a house of prostitution; commission determined that watchman's actions would be detrimental to his service at the college because position required students' respect
How later courts described this case
- college night watchman responsible for counseling students who displayed improper conduct fired for operating a house of prostitution; commission determined that watchman's actions would be detrimental to his service at the college because position required students' respect
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FOURNET, Chief Justice
(concurring).
While I am in full accord with the views expressed by the majority with respect to the law controlling in this case and its application to the facts as found by the Civil Service Commission, I can find no justification whatsoever for the statement contained in the opinion to the effect that this court in ordering the reinstatement of the employee in Brickman v. New Orleans Aviation Board, 236 La. 143 , 107 So.2d 422 , “did not follow the principle of law that if there is any evidence before the commission from which a conclusion can be drawn that the employee’s conduct is prejudicial to the service, the commission’s ruling will not be disturbed * *
A perusal of the opinion rendered on rehearing in that case will readily disclose that such principle of law formed no basis for the decision. Instead, the court held *943 that the facts as found by the commission 1 presented “no legal cause for which appellant could constitutionally be subjected to disciplinary action * *
. These facts, as set out in the opinion, were that the plaintiff’s record as a city employee to the date of discharge was untarnished; that there was not the slightest reflection in the record upon her ability or industry; that the demands made upon her and her attempt to comply, required time and effort far beyond the call of duty; and that prior to her dismissal on July 26, 1956, the plaintiff had been a competent and faithful employee of the City of New Orleans. In view of these facts the court pointed out: “While as noted in our original opinion herein ‘we are without authority to examine into the sufficiency of the evidence •to establish adequate reasons for the discharge of an employee,’ we have not only the authority but the constitutional duty when such question is raised * * * to determine whether the assigned reasons for disciplining a classified employee, accepting the Civil Service Commission’s determinations of fact, do indeed (as required by our Constitution, Article XIV, Section 15 (N) (1), see above) constitute adequate cause for any disciplinary action. We, therefore, must hold that the Commission incorrectly concluded as a matter of law, after having made the above factual findings, that the appellant had not borne her burden of proving that the appointing authority had acted arbitrarily and without adequate reason (cause) in subjecting her to disciplinary action.” (The emphasis and matter in final brackets, i. e., (cause), have been supplied by me.)