Opinion ID: 2737215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Contracts Clauses

Text: Appellants assert additional claims under the Contracts Clauses of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions. U.S. Const. art. I, §10; La. Const. art. I, § 23. Contracts Clause claims are analyzed using a three-step analysis: (1) the state law must have substantially impaired a contractual relationship; (2) the state’s asserted justification for the impairment must serve a significant and legitimate public purpose; and (3) the challenged law must be reasonably necessary to achieve the public purpose. United Healthcare Ins. Co. v. Davis, 602 F.3d 618, 627 (5th Cir. 2010). 6 Implicit in the first step is a requirement that the plaintiff actually identify a provision of his contract that has been impaired. Appellants here 6 The analysis under the contracts clause of the Louisiana Constitution is identical for all intents and purposes. See Louisiana v. All Prop. & Cas. Ins. Carriers Authorized & Licensed to Do Bus. in the State of La., 937 So. 2d 313, 324 (La. 2006). 15 Case: 13-31252 Document: 00512782407 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/25/2014 No. 13-31252 have done no such thing. 7 Appellants’ brief points out that the Civil Service Rules “become a part of Plaintiffs’ employment agreements and were incorporated therein, as though expressly forming a part of the Plaintiffs’ employment agreements.” Even assuming arguendo that is true, they point to no entitlement in the Civil Service Rules that was later impaired by the State. In fact, the Civil Service Rules expressly provided for the possibility of layoffs. See La. Civ. Serv. R. ch. 17 (“Layoff Avoidance Measures, Layoffs, and Post Layoff”). Further, counsel for Appellants stated at oral argument that Babin’s and Ray’s layoffs complied with the Civil Service Rules. Appellants’ brief also generally avers that “the job security rights of permanent classified state employees are not only property rights protected by the Due Process Clauses . . . they are also contract rights which are protected by the Contracts Clauses.” They also state that “it cannot be persuasively argued that the Defendants’ evisceration of the Plaintiff’s property and contract rights is permissible, notwithstanding the protections of the Contracts Clauses.” If we give Appellants the benefit of the doubt and assume arguendo that their broad assertions have merit, those assertions fail to identify any specific contractual expectation of which they were denied. The most specific allegation is found in their reply brief, arguing that “Civil Service merely changed the titles of the position and that the functions continued to exist and were performed by private contractors.” But that argument again fails to identify a specific contractual provision (or Civil Service Rule allegedly incorporated into the contract) that Appellants claim was substantially impaired. 7While the contracts clause argument in Appellants’ complaint appears to have been premised on their having had “bumping rights,” Appellants have unequivocally waived that argument in their reply brief. 16 Case: 13-31252 Document: 00512782407 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/25/2014 No. 13-31252 As such, the grant of summary judgment on the contracts clause claims was not in error.