A Louisiana appellate court has affirmed a Civil Service Commission decision overturning the suspension of a New Orleans firefighter, finding the discipline was procedurally defective under the state’s Fire Service Bill of Rights.  

The case arises from a March 17, 2024 response by Engine Company 20 to a fire alarm at the Second City Courthouse in Algiers. The facts were explained in the appellate ruling as follows:

• On March 17, 2024, firefighters from Engine Company 20 were called out to the Second City Courthouse on Morgan Street in Algiers.
• The firefighters involved were Captain Randolph Edwards (“Edwards”), Anthony Donseroaux (“Donseroaux”), Milton Smith (“Smith”) and Adams. It was the third callout to this address that day.
• On the two prior occasions, the team was not able to get into the courthouse.
• On this third occasion, a building representative was present and let the men in.
• They searched the building and found no evidence of fire. They were unable to stop the alarm.
• While awaiting someone from the alarm company to stop the false alarm, [Captain] Edwards, who was the ranking firefighter on the scene, began a conversation with the building representative on matters unrelated to the fire call.
• Approximately 10 to 15 minutes after the building was searched, the captain and other firefighters walked outside and saw Adams talking to Smith, the firetruck operator.
• The building representative commented that the two firefighters by the truck were ready to leave.
• [Captain] Edwards then walked to the truck and chastised Adams for leaving the scene inside the building and informed him that he should stay next to his captain.
• [Captain] Edwards alleges that Adams told him, “you think you’re in charge of f*****g E20 but you’re not in charge.”
• Adams alleges that he said, “you think you’re in charge of E20 but it’s a team.”
• Neither Smith nor Donseroaux heard the profanity that[Captain]Edwards described but both witnesses testified that the conversation was heated. Smith, who was outside at all times, explained that he called Adams to the truck to ask if the inspection revealed anything.
• After the incident, Edwards asked every member of the team to write a Special Report (statement) regarding the call out.

After a pre-disciplinary hearing, Adams was suspended for 48 hours for leaving the building without permission during the incident.  At issue is the specific steps the department took to investigate and discipline Adams. Again, quoting from the decision:

• Edwards completed a Documentation of Disciplinary Action (“DDA”) form charging Adams with violating NOFDRR57 of the New Orleans Fire Department (“NOFD”) Rules and Regulations.
• RR 57 provides that, “At fire scenes or emergency calls, members shall not perform tasks without direction or orders from command or perform tasks that do not support incident objectives (i.e. freelancing).”
• The form is signed by Captain Edwards as the “Initiating Officer/Supervisor,” Adams as the “Employee,” and the “District Chief/Supervisor” in Adams’ chain of command.
• These signatures are dated March 20, 2024. The reports were sent up the chain of command to First Platoon Deputy Chief David Castle (“Castle”), who received them on March 23, 2024.
• He was the disciplinary review officer responsible for coordinating documentation and scheduling hearings. Castle set a pre-disciplinary hearing for April 16, 2024, and issued a notice of the hearing to Adams.
• Neither Castle nor any other officer ever provided Adams a “Notification of a Formal Investigation” as is customary in such matters.
• After the pre-disciplinary hearing, another officer, District Chief Thomas Ussin (“Ussin”), re-wrote the reports submitted by firefighters Donsereaux and Smith.
• Both firefighters testified before the Civil Service Commission (“CSC”) and acknowledged that they signed the re-written statements and that the information contained in them was correct.
• Castle completed his investigation and on April 22, 2024, he issued a letter to Adams informing him that he was suspended for 48 hours for violating fire department policy.
• The letter advised Adams that, “Specifically, on March 20, 2024,[sic] while on an incident investigating an alarm you exited the building without the captain’s permission while the rest of the crew remained inside to confirm the alarm status and mitigate the incident.”
• Adams appealed the NOFD decision to the CSC.

Adams appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which found that the department initiated an investigation but failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Louisiana’s Firefighters Bill of Rights, La. R.S. § 33:2181. Specifically, the Commission found that Adams was not provided written notice identifying the investigators or advising him of his rights at the commencement of the investigation. It also found that the rewriting of witness statements by a district chief constituted investigative activity. Based on those findings, the Commission ruled the discipline was an “absolute nullity.”  

The New Orleans Fire Department appealed, arguing that the Commission erred in determining when the investigation commenced and in concluding that the department failed to identify the proper investigator.  

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Commission’s decision. The court focused on when an investigation begins under the Firefighters Bill of Rights, noting that an investigation commences when an authorized person begins gathering evidence “with a view to possible disciplinary action.” Applying that standard, the court found that Captain Edwards began the investigation on the day of the incident by collecting statements and preparing documentation for disciplinary review.  

Because Adams was not provided the required written notice of the investigation, including the identity of the investigators and the nature of the charges, the court concluded the statutory requirements were not met. The statute provides that any discipline imposed without full compliance “is an absolute nullity.”

The court rejected the Commission’s finding that the district chief who edited witness statements was an investigator, characterizing his role as limited to correcting grammar and formatting. However, it noted that editing the statements without preserving the originals or providing them to Adams was inappropriate.  

Despite recognizing that the underlying disciplinary concern—leaving an assignment without authorization—was legitimate, the court held that the procedural deficiencies required invalidation of the suspension.  

One judge dissented, concluding that the formal investigation did not begin until the firefighter received notice from the disciplinary review officer, and that the department’s actions complied with the statute.  Based on general disciplinary principles, the dissent is correct. To rule otherwise is to confuse the filing of a complaint (ie the act which causes the department to launch an investigation) with the actual conducting of an investigation.

It is worth noting that Louisiana’s Fire Service Bill of Rights has rather harsh consequences for non-compliance with its requirements.

• § 33:2181. Applicability; minimum standards during investigation; penalties for failure to comply. …
• C. No fire employee shall be disciplined, demoted, dismissed or be subject to any adverse action unless the investigation is conducted in accordance with this Subpart. Any discipline, demotion, dismissal or adverse action of any sort taken against a fire employee without complete compliance with the provisions of this Subpart is an absolute nullity.