Decision

 

                                                               Filed: February 7, 2012 

 

State of Louisiana  

Civil Service Commission

 

Docket No. S-17295

 

Micha Rider

 

Versus

 

Department of Health and Hospitals, Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System

______________________________________________________________________

 

Rule(s):        9.1(e); 13.10

 

Topic(s):       Right of appeal, separation of probationary employee

______________________________________________________________________

 

Appearances:          Micha Rider, self-represented

Jenna Young, on behalf of DHH, ELMHS

 

Statement of the Appeal

 

Micha Rider was employed by the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH), Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System (ELMHS) as a Corrections Guard Therapeutic and was serving with probationary status.  By letter dated November 4, 2011, DHH separated Ms. Rider from her employment effective that day. 

 

On November 15, 2011, Ms. Rider filed an appeal wherein she denies the allegations of the separation letter and concludes that her “termination was wrongful and clearly an issue of discrimination and injustice.”  Ms. Rider alleges that she was two weeks shy of two years in her position, and that she had been recommended for permanent status.  She further concludes that she and other probationary employees involved in an incident were treated differently than permanent employees who were also involved.  As relief, Ms. Rider requests that the separation letter be removed from her personnel file and she be reinstated.   

 

On November 29, 2011, I issued a notice to Ms. Rider questioning whether she had established a right of appeal to the Commission.  I gave her fifteen (15) calendar days to amend her appeal and/or show cause in writing why it should not be summarily dismissed.  I received no response from Ms. Rider.

 

Based on a review of the record and pursuant to Article X, § 12(A) of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, I reach the following conclusions.

 

Discussion and Conclusions of Law

 

Ms. Rider was a probationary employee. Pursuant to Civil Service Rule 9.1(e), she was subject to separation from her position at any time. Furthermore, as a probationary employee, Ms. Rider had no property right to her job.[1] Accordingly, Ms. Rider’s appeal rights are more limited than those of classified employees with permanent status.

 

As a probationary employee, Ms. Rider only has a right of appeal to the Commission if she alleges that she has been adversely affected by the violation of the Civil Service Article or the Civil Service Rules or that she has been discriminated against because of her religious or political beliefs, sex or race.[2] 

 

Despite being given an opportunity to do so, Ms. Rider has failed to allege sufficient specific facts to support a conclusion that she has been adversely affected by the violation of the Civil Service Article or the Civil Service Rules, or that DHH has discriminated against her because of her religious or political beliefs, sex or race.  Therefore, I conclude that she has failed to establish a right of appeal to the Commission.

 

Accordingly, this appeal is summarily dismissed.

 

 

 

____________________________

Roxie F. Goynes

Civil Service Commission Referee

 

 

 

 

 


[1]See: Murray v. Department of Revenue and Taxation, 504 So.2d 561 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1986); Maurello v. Department of Health and Human Resources, Office of Management and Finance, 510 So.2d 458 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1987); Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985).

 

[2] Civil Service Rule 13.10; Flanagan v. Department of Environmental Quality, 99-1332 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/99); 747 So.2d 763; Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry v. Sumrall, 98-1587 (La. 3/2/99); 728 So.2d 1254.