Case Name: CITY OF BATON ROUGE, Parish of East Baton Rouge and the Department of Public Works v. Anthony DOUGLAS and the Personnel Board of the City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2005-12-29
Citations: 923 So. 2d 166
Docket Number: No. 2004 CA 1448
Parties: CITY OF BATON ROUGE, Parish of East Baton Rouge and the Department of Public Works v. Anthony DOUGLAS and the Personnel Board of the City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge.
Judges: CARTER, C.J., WHIPPLE, PARRO, KUHN, GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, DOWNING, GAIDRY, MCDONALD, MCCLENDON, HUGHES, and WELCH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 923
Pages: 166–170

Head Matter:
CITY OF BATON ROUGE, Parish of East Baton Rouge and the Department of Public Works v. Anthony DOUGLAS and the Personnel Board of the City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge.
No. 2004 CA 1448.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Dec. 29, 2005.
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Kuhn, Jan. 13, 2006.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 2006.
See also 847 So.2d 1278.
Irys L. Allgood, Baton Rouge, for Plaintiffs/Appellants, City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge and Department of Public Works.
Annette Bookter, Baton Rouge, for Defendant/Appellee, Personnel Board of the City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge.
Edward J. Walters, Jr., Baton Rouge, for Defendant/Appellee Anthony Douglas.
CARTER, C.J., WHIPPLE, PARRO, KUHN, GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, DOWNING, GAIDRY, MCDONALD, MCCLENDON, HUGHES, and WELCH, JJ.

Opinion:
CARTER, C.J.
| ¡/This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court ordering the Department of Public Works (DPW) for the City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge (City/Parish), to reinstate Anthony Douglas's employment. This court has considered the matter en banc to resolve a direct conflict of two prior opinions of this court.
DISCUSSION
Anthony Douglas was terminated from his employment with DPW in 1999. Douglas appealed his termination to the Personnel Board. After a hearing, the Board members could not agree on an appropriate punishment. Because there were not enough votes to impose either penalty considered, the Board ruled that Douglas would be reinstated to his DPW position effective September 30, 1999.
The City/Parish appealed the Board's decision to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, which affirmed the Board's decision. The City/Parish then appealed to this court. In an unpublished decision, this court reversed the district court's judgment and reinstated DPW's termination of Douglas. City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas, 00-1736 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/28/01), 800 So.2d 448 (unpublished) (Douglas I). The Louisiana Supreme Court denied Douglas's subsequent application for a writ of certiorari. City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas, 01-2806 (La.11/9/01), 801 So.2d 1066.
Approximately eighteen months after this court rendered its unpublished decision in Douglas I, a different panel of this court considered and decided the case of City of Baton Rouge v. Bernard, 01-2468 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1/22/03), 840 So.2d 4. As was the case in Douglas I, Bernard involved an appeal of a Personnel Board decision taken by the City/Parish. |3In Douglas I, this court did not specifically address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, although subject matter jurisdiction was presumed. However, in Bernard, the court did address the issue and concluded that the City/Parish has by its own charter limited its recourse as a juridical entity from adverse decisions of its own Personnel Board. Therefore, the court held, neither the district court nor this court has subject matter jurisdiction over appeals taken from the Personnel Board by the City/Parish. Bernard, 840 So.2d at 7. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the City/Parish's application for a writ of certiorari. City of Baton Rouge v. Bernard, 03-1005 (La.6/27/03), 847 So.2d 1278.
In April 2003, Douglas petitioned the district court, in the same suit record as the prior appeal taken by the City/Parish from the decision of the Personnel Board, for a writ of mandamus ordering DPW to reinstate his employment. Douglas contended that pursuant to this court's later decision in Bernard, the district court and this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal the City/Parish had taken in his case and therefore the ensuing court decisions are null and void. The City/Parish excepted to the petition, raising various objections, including res judica-ta. After consideration, the district court overruled the exceptions urged by the City/Parish and issued the writ of mandamus ordering that Douglas be returned to his employment with DPW pursuant to the decision of the Personnel Board from which the original appeal was taken. The City/Parish now appeals.
It is apparent that this case concerns the direct conflict of two prior opinions of this court: City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas, 00-1736 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/28/01), 800 So.2d 448 (unpublished) (Douglas I); and City of Baton Rouge v. Bernard, 01-2468 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1/22/03), 840 So.2d 4. To resolve the conflict between Douglas I and Bernard, we hereby expressly overrule Douglas I. See Walker v. Bossier Medical Center, 04-1780 (La.2/25/05), 894 So.2d 1095 (per curiam); Walker v. Bossier Medical Center, 04-1797 (La.2/25/05), 894 So.2d 1096 (per curiam). In light of our decision to overrule Douglas I, we hereby affirm the result reached by the trial court.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs of these proceedings in the amount of $544.13 are assessed to the City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge and Department of Public Works.
AFFIRMED.
GUIDRY, J., concurs in the result.
KUHN, J., dissents and will assign reasons.
MCDONALD, J., concurs believing the City has no right of action.
PETTIGREW, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
MCCLENDON, J., concurs.
HUGHES, J., dissents.
PARRO, J., concurs and assigns reasons.