Opinion ID: 2747401
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: mutual agreements

Text: A. UTNO and OPSB understand, acknowledge and agree that they each are entering into this Agreement in order to fully, completely and finally resolve the underlying disputes and bring the matters stated herein to conclusion. B. UTNO and OPSB agree that the terms and conditions stated in this settlement agreement are fair and just. A Fourth Amending and Supplemental Petition was filed in the present case on March 23, 2007, seeking class certification and for the first time seeking damages from the OPSB and State defendant’s “wrongful conduct.” Paragraph 72 of this petition claimed that the plaintiffs’ damages included: 14 (A) Constitutional violations (due process and property rights); (B) Violation of plaintiffs’ employment rights under La. R.S. 17:461, 17:462, and 17:522, including but not limited to lost wages/salary, lost income, benefits and emoluments; (C) Contractual rights under Louisiana law; (D) La. Civil Code 2315 damages (tortious interference); (E) Other statutory and/or jurisprudential rights for public school employees; (F) General damages; (G) Equitable relief; and (H) Plaintiffs reserve the right to request a declaratory judgment hearing on their previously severed claim that La. R.S. 1990 as amended by Act 35 (the post-Katrina public school takeover law) is unconstitutional as implemented. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages, including lost wages/salary, lost income, benefits, and emoluments, and general damages, plus attorney fees and legal interest. The class was certified on December 10, 2008, affirmed by the court of appeal,13 and this Court denied writs on March 5, 2010.14 The class was defined as follows: All current or former employees of the Orleans Parish School Board prior to Hurricane Katrina [August 29, 2005], who were terminated and/or forced to retire under the threat of termination from employment by the Orleans Parish School Board, and claim to have sustained economic injury and/or mental anguish and emotional distress as a result of termination and/or being forced to retire under the threat of termination from employment.15 13 Oliver v. Orleans Parish School Board, 09-0489 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/12/09), 25 So. 3d 189. 14 Oliver v. Orleans Parish School Board, 09-2708 (La. 3/5/10), 28 So. 3d 1012 (Victory, J. and Guidry, J., would grant). 15 The classes were divided into subclasses composed of “Tenured, Certified Teachers,” “Tenured, Certified Teacher Promoted to Positions of Higher Salary,” “Employees with ‘permanent status’ other than classroom teachers,” and “Employees forced to retire under duress.” 15 On April 16, 2010, the class representatives filed a Fifth Amending and Supplemental Petition, alleging for the first time that the OPSB and State defendants “conspired to and, in fact, committed wrongful conduct which included, but was not limited to, the following: a) wrongful termination of plaintiffs and class members; and/or b) intentional interference with the plaintiffs’ and class members’ employment contracts and/or property rights.” The petition specifically alleged: At all times relevant herein: a) the plaintiffs and the class members all had employments contracts and/or legally protected employment interests between them and the defendants; b) the defendants were fully aware of these employment contracts and/or state-mandated due process and property as identified in Paragraph 72 of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amending and Supplemental Petition; c) the defendants conspired and/or acted jointly to intentionally induce and/or cause the breaching of these employment contracts and/or legally protected employment interests, and/or intentionally rendered the performance of the employment contracts and/or legally protected employment interests impossible or more burdensome; d) the defendants did not have reasonable justification for their actions; and e) the defendants conspiring and/or joint actions resulted in the breach of the employment contracts and/or legally protected employment interest at issue herein, thereby causing damages to plaintiffs as identified in Paragraph 72 of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amending and Supplemental Petition. After a 15-day bench trial in May and June, 2011, the district court issued a “Judgment and Reasons for Judgment.” The district court found that the OPSB had violated the plaintiffs’ due process rights by failing to provide them with a meaningful appeal as required by La. R.S. 17:81.4 and Personnel Policy 4118.4-R because no member of the class received a grievance hearing subsequent to the RIF. In addition, the district court found the OPSB violated the class members’ due process rights by failing to create a recall list prior to the mass termination as required by La. R.S. 17:81.4 and Personnel Policy 4118.4-R. While the district court found that the State’s actions were authorized by Act 35, it found the State was solidarily liable for the wrongful termination of the class members because it was in partnership with the OPSB by virtue of the MOU, and the State and the OPSB were mandates of A&M 16 (which it found wrongfully terminated the entire OPSB workforce). Lastly, the district court found the State liable for intentional interference with the employment contracts between the class members and the OPSB. Thus, the district court concluded that the OPSB and the State were “jointly and solidarily” liable “for all compensatory damages hereafter judicially determined to have been sustained by each member of [the class].” The district court then awarded five-years worth of “loss of income” damages to each class representative as follows: Antoinette Aubry-Guillory $330,815.00 Karen Marks $48,101.00 Gwendolyn Ridgely $480,616.00 Lois Lockhart $220,089.00 Linda Pichon $120,462.00 Barbara Moore $68,431.00 Cynthia Jordan $94,118.00 The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.16 The court of appeal ruled that the trial court did not err in denying the defendants’ exceptions of res judicata, but on different grounds.17 The court noted that two of the previously filed lawsuits involved the same specific claims as this lawsuit–UTNO/Davis challenged the constitutionality of Act 35 and UTNO/Arthur asserted claims that plaintiffs’ employment rights pursuant to La. R.S. 17-461-62 and 17:522 had been violated–and that the defined class in this case includes employees who were part of the UTNO settlement.18 However, the court found that “even though the Union settlement may support preclusion under normal circumstances, the matter sub judice represents a truly exceptional situation as to warrant this Court’s discretion in barring the application of 16 Oliver v. Orleans Parish School Board, 12-1520 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/15/14), 133 So. 3d 38. 17 Id. 133 So. 3d at 50-56. 18 Id. at 50, n. 30. 17 res judicata pursuant to La. R.S. 13:4232.”19 The reasons the court of appeal found for applying the “exceptional circumstances” exception to res judicata included: (1) plaintiffs were asserting claims that had not previously been actually litigated or adjudicated; (2) the plaintiffs only received “minimal consideration” through the UTNO settlement; and (3) the OPSB did not seek dismissal of this case through the UTNO settlement.20 Regarding liability, while the court of appeal found that the OPSB’s RIF was lawful, it found class members had a “substantive right to be recalled,” which the OPSB violated by failing to create a recall list as required by Personnel Policy 4118.4(D).21 Specifically, the court of appeal found: In the instant case, the Appellees were entitled to, but not granted, the procedural protections of the [OPSB’s] Policy. A Requirement of the [OPSB’s] Policy was that employees affected by an [sic] RIF had recall rights for two years. In failing to create the Recall List, the Appellees lost the opportunity for employment for a minimum of two years. For these reasons we affirm the trial court’s finding of liability against the [OPSB] for violating the Appellees’ due process rights.22 The court of appeal reversed the district court’s ruling that the State was solidarily liable with the OPSB, finding that the MOU did not create a partnership between the two.23 Further, the court of appeal reversed the district court’s ruling that the State was independently liable for tortious interference with contract, finding that “Act 35, La. R.S. 17:10.5 et seq. and La. R.S. 17:1990 provided the State with the power and authority to transfer funding and facilities to the RSD.”24 However, the court found 19 Id. at 55. 20 Id. at 55, 56. 21 Id. at 46. 22 Id. 23 Id. at 49. 24 Id. at 47. 18 the State liable for violating the class members’ due process rights by failing to give them “priority consideration” in hiring for the RSD schools which they were statutorily mandated to do by virtue of La. R.S. 17:1990(D)(1).25 La. R.S. 17:1990(D)(1) provides: At the time of the transfer of a school to the school district [RSD], any certified teacher with regular and direct responsibility for providing classroom instruction to students who is employed in the transferred school by the prior system shall be given priority consideration for employment in the same or comparable position by the school district. The court of appeal found there was “absolutely no evidence that qualified Appellees were provided the consideration mandated by the statute,” and that instead, the State advertised for the positions nationally and “contracted with Teach for America to hire inexperienced college graduates that did not have teacher certification.”26 The court of appeal held that “[b]y not following that mandate, the State, through the RSD, violated the constitutional due process rights of those teachers, resulting in their loss of opportunity for continued employment.”27 Regarding damages, the court of appeal amended the district court’s award of damage, and found the OPSB liable for two years of back pay and fringe benefits, and that the State was liable only to teachers meeting the criteria of of La. R.S. 17:1990(D)(1) for an additional one year of year of back pay and fringe benefits.28 We granted the OPSB’s and the State’s writ applications to determine if the doctrine of res judicata applies to preclude plaintiffs’ claims, and if not, whether the OPSB and/or the State is liable for violating plaintiffs’ due process rights.29 25 Id. at 48. 26 Id. 27 Id. 28 Id. at 50. 29 Oliver v. Orleans Parish School Board, 14-0329 and 14-0330 (La. 6/20/14), 141 So. 3d 274. 19