CYRIL MANEGO v. DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (2026)

This is an appeal from a decision rendered by the City of New Orleans Civil Service Commission (“CSC”). Pro se plaintiff, Cyril Manego (“Mr. Manego”), appeals the June 25, 2025 Decision of the CSC, which denied his appeal of the August 26, 2024 disciplinary action issued by his employer, the Department of Property Management (“the Department”), also known as the Appointing Authority. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Manego was employed by the Department as an Accountant III. The Department contends that on August 14, 2024, Mr. Manego refused a request by the Human Resources Department (“HR”) to correct two uniform orders that were received for two new employees.¹ On August 15, 2024, Mr. Manego reported to the Deputy Director of the Department that ordering uniforms was not his duty. On August 21, 2024, a meeting was held to discuss Mr. Manego's refusal to correct the uniform orders. At the meeting, Mr. Manego stated that it was not his job, and that he considered it to be a violation of segregation of duties, i.e., it was a task that required action by two different employees. On August 26, 2024, the Department issued a disciplinary letter notifying Mr. Manego that he was suspended without pay for one working day for insubordination pursuant to his violation of CAO Policy memorandum No. 83 II(f).²

Mr. Manego appealed his disciplinary action. An evidentiary hearing was held by the CSC Hearing Examiner on January 17, 2025. Evidence was introduced and testimony was given by Mr. Manego, appearing pro se, Management Development Specialist, Whitney Lucas (“Ms. Lucas”); Deputy Director of the Department, Enrico Sterling (“Mr. Sterling”); Personnel Division Chief, Jovan Bell Walker (“Ms. Walker”); Director of the Department, Howard Nobles, III (“Mr. Nobles”); and Administrative Supervisor, Sonja Brunious (“Ms. Brunious”).

Testimony of Mr. Manego

Mr. Manego stated that he refused to place the order for the uniforms because it was unethical and a violation of segregation of duties according to the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. More specifically, Mr. Manego stated that he was being asked to do a job that should be segregated between two people.

Mr. Manego considered the request to correct the uniforms to be an order for “new” uniforms, which would require him to get a quote from the uniform vendor. He explained that one person in the Department cannot do all tasks associated with the process of ordering things in order to prevent fraud. Mr. Manego testified that the Budget Coordinator would have to be involved in getting a quote from the vendor. At the time, the position of Budget Coordinator was vacant. Mr. Manego considered that he was being asked to do the job of Budget Coordinator, i.e., start another order process because they needed “new uniforms.”

Testimony of Ms. Lucas

Ms. Lucas, Assistant HR manager for the Department, testified that she asked Mr. Manego if he could “figure out how to correct the uniforms that had arrived.” She stated that initially he was receptive but later said it was not his job duty. Mr. Manego implied it was an HR job. We note that Mr. Manego testified that Ms. Lucas first asked him to correct the orders, which he said he could do. However, he explained that she later asked him to “order” new uniforms, which he refused to do. He considered those to be two different requests.

Ms. Lucas further stated that at the August 21, 2024 meeting, she heard Mr. Nobles give Mr. Manego the directive to correct the uniform orders. Mr. Manego responded by saying it was not his job duty. Mr. Manego stated he would handle it if he were the Budget Coordinator. It was Ms. Lucas’ understanding that Mr. Manego was asked to do the task because his subordinate, Ms. Brunious, had just retired, and there was no one else available. Ms. Brunious was typically in charge of correcting orders.

Testimony of Mr. Sterling

As Deputy Director of the Department, Mr. Sterling had supervisory oversight of Mr. Manego. He testified that he had a discussion with Mr. Manego on August 15, 2024 concerning the request to correct the uniforms initially made by Ms. Lucas. Mr. Sterling told Mr. Manego that someone in the Department would be assigned the task of correcting the orders and, more than likely, it would be him. Mr. Manego replied, “You can try.” Mr. Sterling took this response to mean Mr. Manego was not going to accept it.

Mr. Sterling testified that at the August 21, 2024 meeting, Mr. Nobles requested Mr. Manego to correct the uniform orders. Mr. Manego replied he would not do it. He stated he would if he were Budget Coordinator. Mr. Manego also implied that it would be unconstitutional.

Mr. Sterling was asked what correcting the uniform orders would entail. He responded, “I would imagine a phone call to the company, Cintas, saying, you know, we need this size uniform versus that size uniform.” Mr. Sterling explained he could not see how that would require a new order.

Testimony of Ms. Walker

As Personnel Division Chief, managing HR for the Department, Ms. Walker was alerted by Ms. Lucas and Mr. Nobles as to the disagreement with Mr. Manego. Ms. Walker attended the August 21, 2024 meeting, which she recorded on her mobile phone.³ At the meeting, Mr. Manego claimed he would not do the task because it was unconstitutional. However, he would if he were promoted. Ms. Walker considered Mr. Marengo's actions to be insubordination. Following the meeting, Ms. Walker drafted the disciplinary letter.

Testimony of Mr. Nobles

The Director of the Department, Mr. Nobles, testified that the August 21, 2024 meeting was about “correcting” the uniform orders. He thought Mr. Manego needed only to call the vendor to explain the problem, which would not have entailed Mr. Manego approving an order for new uniforms. Mr. Nobles considered the task to fall within Mr. Manego's duties.

Mr. Nobles explained that Mr. Manego was asked to perform the task because he was Ms. Brunious’ supervisor, and she created the initial requisition. He explained that Mr. Manego was asked multiple times but refused because he believed it would violate accounting principles of the United States. Mr. Manego said he could comply if he were made Budget Coordinator. Finally, Mr. Nobles testified that Mr. Manego's suspension was justified because his refusal to follow the order affects the operation of the Department. He considered a one-day suspension to be fair.

Testimony of Ms. Brunious

Mr. Manego called Ms. Brunious to testify. She explained that she initially created the requisition for the uniforms in question but did not place the order. Ms. Brunious was asked how she would have corrected the error. She stated she would put a “sticky note” on the wrong uniforms and leave it for when Cintas routinely came by. She thought they would see the note and would take it.

Ms. Brunious agreed it was a simple matter to fix the problem. She further testified that it would not be “ordering a uniform.”

Following the proceedings, the Hearing Examiner recommended that Mr. Manengo's appeal be denied, concluding as follows:

The Appointing Authority has established by a preponderance of the evidence, that it disciplined the Appellant for cause and that the penalty imposed was commensurate with the violation. The Appellant failed to follow clear and straightforward instructions, which negatively impacted the efficient operation of the department.

Accepting the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, the CSC denied Mr. Manego's appeal on June 25, 2025. Therein, the CSC determined:

The Department of Property Management has shown that Mr. Manego was insubordinate when he refused to correct two uniform orders, even after the Director of the Department of Property Management directed him to perform this task. Mr. Manego's objection that the request requires him to engage in unethical conduct is misplaced, as Mr. Manego was unable to support this objection. Insubordination by an employee impairs the efficient operation of the Department of Property Management, interfering with the performance of work.

The CSC further determined that “[a] one-day suspension was commensurate with Mr. Manego's repeated refusal to perform a simple task, even when requested to do so by successively higher levels of supervision.” This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Manego asserts the following assignments of error: 1) The parties did not have an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence; 2) Incorrect facts were reported; 3) Biased Decision – Misuse of Discretionary Power; and 4) The Judgment was based on incorrect reasons for his suspension.

Governing Legal Principles

In Hardy v Juvenile Justice Intervention Center, 2022-0030, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/16/22), 343 So.3d 288, 293, this Court summarized the governing legal precepts applicable in CSC cases as follows:

An appointing authority may discipline an employee with permanent status in the classified service for sufficient cause expressed in writing. If an employee believes that an appointing authority issued discipline without sufficient cause, the employee may appeal to the CSC. In an appeal before the CSC brought pursuant to Article X, § 8(A) of the Louisiana Constitution, the appointing authority has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence: 1) the occurrence of the complained of activity; and 2) that the conduct complained of impaired the efficiency of the public service in which the appointing authority is engaged. If the CSC determines that the appointing authority has met its initial burden and had sufficient cause to issue discipline, it must then determine if that discipline “was commensurate with the infraction.”

Id. (quoting Collier v. Sewerage & Water Bd., 2018-0097, pp. 6-7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/1/18), 253 So.3d 190, 194-95).

Standard of Review

As reiterated in Carter v. Sewerage and Water Bd. of New Orleans, 2024-0467, pp. 7-8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/15/25), 408 So.3d 255, 260:

The decision of the CSC “is subject to review on any question of law or fact upon appeal to this Court.” Cure v. Dep't of Police, 07-0166, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/1/07), 964 So.2d 1093, 1094 (citing La. Const. art. X, § 12(B)). The appellate standard of review in civil service cases is as follows: (1) the appellate review of factual findings is governed by the manifest error or clearly erroneous standard; (2) if the CSC's decision involves jurisdiction, procedure, and interpretation of laws or regulations, judicial review is not limited to the arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of discretion standard; rather, the appellate court exercises its constitutional duty to review questions of law and render a judgment on the record; (3) a legal error occurs when a trial court applies the incorrect principles of law and such errors are prejudicial; and (4) mixed questions of fact and law are accorded “great deference” under the manifest error standard of review. Banks v. New Orleans Police Dep't, 01-0859, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/25/02), 829 So.2d 511, 513-14 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the CSC's conclusion as to the existence or absence of cause for dismissal will only be reversed when its decision is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of the CSC's discretion. Razor v. New Orleans Dep't of Police, 04-2002, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/15/06), 926 So.2d 1, 4; Woods v. French Mkt. Corp., 21-0689, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/23/22), 336 So.3d 912, 916, writ not considered, 22-01048 (La. 10/12/22), 348 So.3d 68.

Id. (quoting Crayton v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 2023-0728, pp. 4-5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/9/24), 398 So.3d. 68).

Assignments of Error

In his first assignment of error, Mr. Manego submits that he subpoenaed six witnesses, who all appeared at the hearing. However, he claims he was only given the opportunity to call Ms. Brunious. Mr. Manego further asserts that he was not allowed to present certain evidence. Our review of the transcript reveals that Mr. Manego made no attempt to call any witnesses other than Ms. Brunious. Moreover, he introduced the minutes from the August 21, 2024 meeting and an email from Ms. Lucas to Ms. Brunious regarding the initial order for the uniforms in question. The record does not reflect that Mr. Manego was denied the opportunity to introduce any exhibits, nor did he make a proffer of evidence. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.

Mr. Manego's second assignment of error asserts that incorrect facts were reported. Specifically, he argues that his suspension letter states that he would not do the task of “ordering” uniforms, while the CSC Decision states that he would not complete the task of “correcting” the uniform order.⁴

We recognize that Mr. Manego has asserted in these proceedings that he was willing to correct the uniform order, but that he was not in a position to order new uniforms. Nevertheless, while the term “order” may have been used at times, the record is clear. All that was asked of Mr. Manego was to “correct” the wrong uniform orders. As Mr. Nobles testified, the August 21, 2024 meeting “was about the correction of the two uniforms in question.” We also find this argument to be disingenuous. Mr. Manego claims he was willing to correct the uniform orders. However, he never tried to do so.

In his third assignment of error, Mr. Manego contends that the CSC Decision was biased. Specifically, he argues that the Decision was based solely on Mr. Nobles’ testimony without supporting evidence. We find no merit in this argument. Our review of the transcript, the report of the Hearing Examiner, and the CSC Decision demonstrates that all testimony and evidence was thoroughly considered. Specifically, Mr. Nobles’ testimony was corroborated by Ms. Lucas, Mr. Sterling, Ms. Walker, and Ms. Brunious. All testified that Mr. Manego was asked to correct the uniform orders. Ample evidence was presented to demonstrate that Mr. Manego refused to perform the task. Additionally, as stated above, Mr. Sterling, Mr. Nobles, and Ms. Brunious testified that the task of correcting the uniforms was a simple matter. They further testified that it would not be considered a new order.

Finally, in his fourth assignment of error number four (as also asserted in his second assignment of error), Mr. Manego argues that the CSC Decision was based on an incorrect reason for his suspension. Mr. Manego takes issue with the fact that the suspension letter utilized the term “ordering” uniforms, not “correcting” uniforms. This assertion is meritless. As stated above, the record demonstrates that regardless of the term used in the suspension letter, Mr. Manego was fully aware that he was repeatedly asked to correct the uniform orders. He did not comply. Based on the record evidence, and considering the applicable legal principles and standard of review, we find that the CSC did not err in upholding Mr. Manego's discipline for insubordination.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the June 25, 2025 Decision of the CSC denying Mr. Manego's appeal.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   The record reflects that the uniforms had the wrong size for one employee and the incorrect division embroidered on the uniform for the second employee.

2.   The memorandum states: “Each employee, because of the job assignment, has certain required duties and must assume certain responsibilities. Each employee has a job to do and must do that job. Failure to perform these duties or take these responsibilities is neglect of duty.”

3.   The recording was introduced into evidence.

4.   In a similar argument raised in his fourth assignment of error, Mr. Manego asserts that the judgment was based on an incorrect reason for his suspension, also arguing that the suspension letter incorrectly states that he was suspended for not following the directive of “ordering uniforms.”

Judge Karen K. Herman