Title: Fallon v. New Orleans Police Department
Citation: 115 So. 2d 844, 238 La. 531
Docket Number: N/A
State: Louisiana
Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court
Date: November 9, 1959

115 So. 2d 844 (1959) 238 La. 531 Edward H. FALLON v. NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT. Nos. 43926, 44510. Supreme Court of Louisiana. November 9, 1959. Rehearing Denied December 14, 1959. *845 Robert J. Zibilich, New Orleans, for appellant. Alvin J. Liska, City Atty., Beuker F. Amann, Asst. City Atty., New Orleans, for defendant-appellee. HAMLIN, Justice. In these consolidated cases, Edward H. Fallon, Sr., a former captain in the Department of Police, City of New Orleans, appeals from: On June 24, 1957, the Superintendent of Police addressed the following letter of dismissal[1] to Captain Edward H. Fallon, Sr.: Captain Fallon's appeal lodged with the Civil Service Commission was based on three points, namely, (a) the notice of dismissal was not delivered timely; (b) the Civil Service Law, Article XIV, Sec. 15 (P) (1), Louisiana Constitution of 1921 is unconstitutional; and (c) the Fifth Amendment shielded him from answering the interrogations in question. The Civil Service Commission made the following findings of fact: The Conclusions of Law of the Civil Service Commission recite: What we shall designate as Appeal No. 1 was filed, on January 22, 1958, to the above findings of fact and conclusions of law. On September 23, 1958 (while appeal No. 1 was pending before this Court), counsel for Captain Fallon addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, in which he requested that Captain Edward H. Fallon be reinstated immediately. He stated that if Captain Fallon were not reinstated discrimination would result, inasmuch as Warren A. Labiche had been reinstated after having been dismissed under the same or very similar circumstances. The Superintendent of Police and William W. Shaw, Director of Personnel, City of New Orleans, referred the matter to the Civil Service Commission. In rejecting the demand for reinstatement, the Civil Service Commission expressed its reasons in the following per curiam: "In re: Edward H. Fallon, Sr. To the above ruling, Captain Fallon filed what we shall call Appeal No. 2. This appeal is consolidated with Appeal No. 1, supra. Certain specifications of error, which contain the same arguments advanced by Captain Fallon before the Civil Service Commission, are set forth in Appeal No. 1.[2] We find no merit in appellant's contention that he was not timely notified of his dismissal. The rules of the Civil Service Commission require that an employee and the director of personnel be advised of the dismissal of an employee immediately. Emphasis is placed upon the *848 meaning of the word "Immediately," but herein we are not called upon to discuss its definition. The letter of the Director of Personnel was stamped June 28, 1957, and there is no proof in the record that it was not received before that date; there is no proof as to when appellant received his letter of dismissal,[3] although it is contended that he received it on July 2, 1957. Under such circumstances, we conclude that the following statement of the Civil Service Commission is correct: Section 15(P) (1) of Article XIV, Louisiana Constitution of 1921, which appellant contends is unconstitutional, recites: It is appellant's contention that the section, supra, is unconstitutional, null, and void, because it is violative of and in contravention of Amendment XIV, Sec. 1, of the United States Constitution, wherein it is provided that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This contention is levelled principally at the fact that an employee of a municipality containing a population of less than 250,000 is not governed by Section 15(P) (1) of Article XIV, supra. His conduct is provided for in Section 15.1, subd. 32, of Article XIV, Louisiana Constitution of 1921, which provides: We do not know of any prohibition in the federal or state constitution which forbids the legislature from passing laws which affect municipalities according to their population. In Ward v. Leche, 189 La. 113, 179 So. 52, we were not confronted with the identical question as is herein involved, but in that case we mentioned and recognized a provision in Section 15 of Article XIV, Louisiana Constitution of 1921, which affected municipalities having a population of 100,000 or more.[4] Counsel for appellant has not pointed out whereby the difference in conduct required in Section 15(P) (1) of Article XIV and that set forth in Section 15.1(32) of Article XIV is unreasonable, arbitrary, or insubstantial. State v. Banner Cleaners &amp; Dyers, 184 La. 997, 168 So. 127. Courts do not concern themselves with the expediency or wisdom of a statute. Ward v. Leche, supra; Olivedell Planting Co. v. Town of Lake Providence, 217 La. 621, 47 So. 2d 23. They only inquire as to whether a discrimination is arbitrary and without reason. We find no such discrimination in Section 15(P) (1) of Article XIV, Louisiana Constitution of 1921. Appellant relies on the case of Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of City of New York, 350 U.S. 551, 76 S. Ct. 637, 639, 100 L. Ed. 692, to support his contention that no provision of state law, which abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor which deprives any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, is constitutional. In that case, which is not apposite, the Supreme Court of the United States stated that it was not deciding whether a claim under the "privileges or immunities" clause was considered in the lower courts, since it was concluding that the summary dismissal of Slochower in the circumstances of the case violated due process of law. *850 In the instant matter, we do not have before us for our consideration a summary dismissal. Captain Fallon appealed to the Civil Service Commission, and no contention is made that the hearing was improperly conducted. We have also recently held, in State v. Ford, 233 La. 992, 99 So. 2d 320, that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution does not extend its provisions to the Fifth Amendment[5] in a state court. We have examined the record and discovered that it contains evidence which supports the Findings of Fact of the Civil Service Commission. We find that the Conclusions of Law of the Civil Service Commission are correct, and that appellant has not been deprived of "Due Process of Law." We hold that Section 15(P) (1) of Article XIV, Louisiana Constitution of 1921, is constitutional and does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, Sec. 1, to the Constitution of the United States. In Appeal No. 2, it is contended: Rule VI, 4.6, of the City of New Orleans Civil Service Commission, provides: Appellant argues that the Superintendent of Police requested the reinstatement of Captain Warren A. Labiche on May 8, 1958, and at that time one year had not elapsed *851 from the date of his discharge, June 24, 1957. He contends that it was only after the Civil Service Commission reinstated Captain Labiche on July 10, 1958, that his counsel became aware of the alleged discriminatory action. We have no doubt that appellant's counsel is sincere in his arguments. However, as we have previously stated in this opinion, the privilege of holding a governmental position is not an inalienable right. If the Superintendent of Police saw fit to reinstate one of his officers and not another, we cannot pass upon the validity of his action if the officer who claims to be aggrieved (in the instant case, the appellant) made his request for reinstatement after one year had elapsed from the date of his separation or discharge. The rules of the Civil Service Commission have the effect of law. Article XIV, Sec. 15(I), Louisiana Constitution of 1921. Rule VI, 4.6, of the City of New Orleans Civil Service Commission definitely states that a permanent employee who is separated from his position for cause may be reinstated under certain conditions with probationary status within one year from the date of separation. In the instant matter, more than one year elapsed between the date of dismissal, June 24, 1957, and the date of request for reinstatement, September 23, 1958. Under such circumstances, this Court can afford appellant no relief. For the reasons assigned, in Case No. 43,926 the ruling of the City of New Orleans Civil Service Commission affirming the dismissal of Captain Edward H. Fallon, Sr. by Provosty A. Dayries, Superintendent of Police, is affirmed. For the reasons assigned, in Case No. 44,510 the per curiam ruling of the City of New Orleans Civil Service Commission denying the request of Captain Edward H. Fallon, Sr., for reinstatement to his former position with the Department of Police is affirmed. [1] Captain Fallon had been previously dismissed on March 6, 1957, for refusal to give testimony before the Intelligence Division of the United States Treasury Department. On April 25, 1957, he was reinstated by the Civil Service Commission's affirmance of the request of the Superintendent of Police. [2] On this appeal, we are limited to a review of the conclusions of law. The decision of the appropriate Civil Service Commission is final on the facts. Article XIV, Sec. 15(O) (1), Louisiana Constitution of 1921. [3] "The burden of proof on appeal, as to the facts, shall be on the employee." Art. XIV, Sec. 15(N) (1) (a), Louisiana Const. of 1921. Capt. Fallon did not appear and testify in his own behalf before the Civil Service Commission. He was represented by counsel. [4] "The Legislature shall provide for civil service in municipalities having a population of one hundred thousand (100,000) or more, * * *". [5] "No person * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, * * *." [6] "* * * No person in the `State' or `City Classified Service,' having gained civil service status shall be discriminated against or subjected to any disciplinary action except for cause, and no person in the State or City Classified Service shall be discriminated against or subjected to any disciplinary action for political or religious reasons, and all such persons shall have the right of appeal from such actions."