ANTHONY BAKEWELL v. NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT (2026)

Plaintiff, Anthony Bakewell (“Bakewell”), appeals the November 6, 2025 decision of the City of New Orleans Civil Service Commission (“CSC”), which denied his appeal and upheld his demotion and termination with the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Bakewell was employed as a lieutenant, Seventh District Assistant Commander with the NOPD. On August 27, 2023, and September 1, 2023, the New Orleans Independent Police Monitor received anonymous complaints against Bakewell. As it pertains to this appeal, the complaints alleged sexual harassment of female officers, naming one officer (“N.H.”) specifically.¹

The complaints were investigated by the NOPD Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”). Following the investigation, a Superintendent's Committee Disciplinary Hearing was held on March 6, 2025, where Bakewell was provided with an opportunity to present facts in mitigation or to explain his actions. A Disciplinary Report was issued on March 21, 2025.

Regarding the allegations of misconduct involving sexual harassment, the investigation concluded the following:

• N.H. advised that as she walked in front of Bakewell, he slapped her on her buttocks and stated, “You nasty b-tch you don't have on no drawers.”

• In a separate incident, N.H. and other officers at the Seventh District were discussing their potluck Christmas function. When asked what N.H. would be bringing, Bakewell responded in front of the officers present, “Put by [N.H.], I'm broke, but I got good p-ssy.” N.H. responded, “Don't fu-king play with me or whatever.” N.H. reported that Bakewell became angry and stated, “If I can't fu-king play with you, then get out of my unit” and “We family, this is how I play. If you can't take how I play, leave.”

• N.H. stated that Bakewell previously asked her to be his girlfriend.

• N.H. received text messages from Bakewell asking if he could come to her house, and he referred to her as “bae.”

• It was further reported that Bakewell wrote on the dry erase board positioned next to N.H.’s desk, “Can I be your baby daddy?”

The Disciplinary Report submits that Bakewell denied touching N.H. inappropriately and claimed that the accusations were lies. Bakewell admitted that he did say some things that were inappropriate but that the statements were not intended to create a hostile work environment.

As a result of the investigation, Bakewell was demoted to sergeant, for violating Rule 4: Performance of Duty, Paragraph 4: Neglect of Duty (c)(6) to wit: NOPD Chapter 26.3.1: Workplace Sexual Harassment. Additionally, he was dismissed for violating Rule 2: Moral Conduct, Paragraph 1: Adherence to law to wit: La. R.S. 14:43.1.1 Relative to Misdemeanor Sexual Battery. Bakewell's appeal to the CSC followed. As detailed further below, numerous aggravating factors were identified.

The proceedings were brought before the CSC Hearing Examiner on May 21, 2025. Testimony was taken from Bakewell, witnesses called on his behalf, N.H, and the NOPD investigating officers. Following the proceedings, the Hearing Examiner determined that Bakewell committed the charged misconduct and that the NOPD established that Bakewell was disciplined for cause. However, finding that termination was not commensurate with the infractions, the Hearing Examiner recommended that Bakewell's appeal be granted in part and denied in part, i.e., recommending demotion to sergeant but not termination. Contrary to this recommendation, the CSC denied Bakewell's appeal on November 6, 2025. This appeal followed.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

As set forth in Dukes v. New Orleans Police Dep't., 2022-0746, pp. 5-6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/10/23), 368 So.3d 159, 163-64:

On appeal, the standard of review in a case from the Civil Service Commission is established by the constitutional rule that the Commission's decision is subject to review on any question of law or fact. La. Const. art. X, § 12. A multifaceted standard of appellate review applies. First, as in other civil matters, deference must be given to the Commission's factual findings, which should not be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Regis v. Dep't of Police, 2012-1043, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/12/12), 107 So.3d 790, 793. Second, in evaluating the Commission's determination as to whether the disciplinary action is both based on legal cause and commensurate with the infraction, “the appellate court should not modify the Commission's decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.” Id. Arbitrary or capricious means there is no rational basis for the action taken by the Commission. Id.; Williams v. Dep't of Police, 2008-0465, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/22/08), 996 So.2d 1142, 1146; Bankston v. Dep't of Fire, 2009-1016, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/18/09), 26 So.3d 815, 820.

Classified civil service employees with permanent status may be disciplined only for cause expressed in writing. La. Const., Art. X, § 8(A). New Orleans police officers are included in the protection guaranteed by this provision. Walters v. Dep't of Police of City of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106, 112 (La. 1984). “Legal cause exists whenever an employee's conduct impairs the efficiency of the public service in which the employee is engaged.” Cittadino v. Dep't of Police, 558 So.2d 1311, 1315 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). Thus, the appointing authority must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the occurrence of the complained of activity and that the conduct did in fact impair the efficient and orderly operation of the public service. Id.; see also Cure v. Dep't of Police, 2007-0166, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/1/07), 964 So.2d 1093, 1094 (citing Marziale v. Dep't of Police, 2006-0459, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/8/06), 944 So.2d 760, 767)) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

As assignments of error in this appeal, Bakewell argues that the penalty imposed is not commensurate with the infraction and that there were no sufficient aggravating circumstances to justify the enhanced penalties. We find no merit in either assertion.

Testimony and Evidence Presented

Testimony of Bakewell

Bakewell testified that he had been employed by the NOPD since 2005. He was promoted to sergeant in 2019, then to lieutenant in 2023.

Bakewell denied touching N.H.’s buttocks. He also denied making the alleged comments to N.H., which occurred in the Sally Port during the Christmas potluck conversation. He stated that he was just joking about N.H. always saying she was broke.

Bakewell initially reported during the PIB investigation that someone else must have written the comments about “baby daddy” on the dry erase board. However, after seeing a photograph of the handwriting, he acknowledged writing the notes. He testified that the comments were not directed to N.H. but were a joke regarding another officer and her son with whom Bakewell had a close relationship. Bakewell also stated that the dry erase board was not near N.H.’s desk when the comments were written but was later moved next to her desk.

Testimony of N.H.

During the time period in question, N.H. was a senior police officer assigned to the Seventh District. N.H. described the incident in the latter part of 2022 when Bakewell slapped her on the buttocks as she walked in front of him, making an unwelcomed and sexually explicit comment. She explained that she told Bakewell not to play with her like that, and walked away. N.H. did not believe anyone witnessed the incident.

N.H. related the incident during the Christmas potluck conversation. She stated that there were five or six people standing around in a circle – within two feet of each other – discussing what they would bring to the Christmas party. Bakewell was standing next to her. When it was her turn, Bakewell made the comment, “[p]ut down by [N.H.], I'm broke but I got good p-ssy.” She asked Bakewell not to say that, and he got angry.

Contrary to Bakewell's testimony, N.H. testified that the dry erase board was directly over her desk and that she used it to keep track of her cases. She stated that Bakewell wrote all five of the comments while the board was next to her desk. N.H. considered the comments to be inappropriate.

N.H also described an earlier incident when Bakewell was still a sergeant. He told her “[h]e's not here to protect you anymore ․ give me that p-ssy.” The “he” referenced in the comment was Chief Christopher Goodley, with whom N.H. had a prior romantic involvement. N.H. never reported Bakewell's comments.

N.H. testified that she never made the anonymous complaints to the PIB. She stated that she was embarrassed by the incidents and did not believe it was someone else's place to report what happened to her. N.H. acknowledged that she filed for a Protective Order against Bakewell in September of 2023, after she was interviewed by PIB. She sought the order so that she would not be called or stalked by Bakewell. N.H. indicated that she feared for her safety and was concerned about retaliation. The Protective Order was granted. After that, she avoided Bakewell.

Testimony of Sergeant Claudia Bruce (“Bruce”)

Bruce was assigned to investigate the sexual battery charge against Bakewell. She interviewed N.H. in September of 2023, and conducted approximately eleven other interviews. No physical evidence was obtained, but other individuals reached out to her to provide statements or information as to what they knew of the relationship between Bakewell and N.H. Bruce explained that she had no reason to disbelieve N.H. As a result of her investigation, Bakewell was issued a summons.

Testimony of Detective Sean Ogden (“Ogden”)

Ogden conducted the PIB investigation into the allegations made against Bakewell. Interviews with N.H., Bakewell and witnesses were conducted. Ogden testified that he considered N.H. to be credible. Additionally, he noted that Bakewell's factual account was contradicted by statements taken from N.H. and other witnesses, namely, Sergeant Summer Turner and former Police Officer Vanessa Adams. As a result of his investigation, Ogden recommended that the complaints of sexual harassment and misdemeanor sexual battery be sustained. Testimony of Deputy Chief Jonette Williams (“Williams”)

Williams served as chairperson for Bakewell's investigatory hearing. She stated that Bakewell chose not to call witnesses at the hearing. Rather, he reported that the accusations were either not true or that they did not occur. In making the disciplinary ruling, she stated that mitigating factors were considered, i.e., Bakewell's testimony, his time on the job, and his lack of disciplinary history. Williams also confirmed that aggravating factors were identified and outlined in the Disciplinary Report.

Testimony of Officer Marsha Thompson (“Thompson”)

Thompson testified on behalf of Bakewell. She stated that she never heard him make any inappropriate remarks. She considered Bakewell to be a good supervisor.

Testimony of Senior Police Officer Keyana Rodney (“Rodney”)

Rodney stated that she never had problems with the work environment under Bakewell. She never saw him treat anyone, including N.H., in a derogatory way.

Testimony of Senior Police Officer Kimberly Clemons (“Clemons”)

Clemons considered her work environment with Bakewell as a family environment. She never witnessed Bakewell make demeaning or sexual advancements toward any of the female officers. Clemons was present during the potluck discussion. She did not hear the comments made to N.H. at the time, but she did witness the aftermath. Clemons stated that she consoled N.H. after she stormed off visibly upset. N.H. did not tell Clemons what was said to upset her, just that everyone was judging her because of her past. Clemons explained that after the incident, N.H. began staying in her car at work, not interacting with the other officers. She spoke to Bakewell about the situation and asked him to have a conversation with N.H.

Testimony of Senior Police Officer Wayne Lewis (“Lewis”)

Lewis stated he knew something happened at the potluck discussion, but he did not hear the conversation. He also confirmed that N.H. began isolating herself after the incident.

Following the testimony, the matter was taken under advisement, and post-trial briefing was ordered. As stated above, the CSC Hearing Examiner determined that the NOPD demonstrated cause for the discipline, but that termination was not commensurate with the infractions. The CSC denied Bakewell's appeal.

Law and Analysis

On appeal, Bakewell argues that the CSC erred in finding that termination was commensurate with his actions. It is well recognized that “[i]n determining whether the disciplinary action is commensurate with the infraction, this Court should not modify the discipline imposed by the CSC unless it was ‘arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.’ ” Lewis v. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2017-0608, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/21/18), 242 So.3d 675, 681 (citation omitted). “A decision by the CSC is ‘arbitrary or capricious’ if there is no rational basis for the action taken by the CSC.” Id. at p. 10, 242 So.3d at 682 (citation omitted).

As this Court explained in Byrd v. Dep't of Police, 2012-1040, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/6/13), 109 So.3d 973, 980:

In practice, we afford great deference to the CSC's ruling supporting the decision of the appointing authority. See Serignet v. Dept. of Health, 08-0469, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/20/09), 15 So.3d 1019, 1025. Neither the CSC nor a reviewing court should “second-guess” an appointing authority's decisions. See Lange v. Orleans Levee District, 10-0140, p. 17 (La. 11/30/10), 56 So.3d 925, 936. The CSC and a reviewing court may intervene only when the appointing authority's decisions are arbitrary and capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion. Id. Moreover, neither the CSC nor the reviewing court may serve as a de facto pardon board. Id. “[S]ympathy is not a legal standard.” Id.

Bakewell submits that the penalty imposed does not account for the mitigating factors such as his work record and disciplinary history. He contends that the sustained violations represent isolated incidents over a brief period, not a pattern of misconduct that would typically be associated with a termination. He further argues that there were no proven aggravating circumstances to justify the enhanced penalty beyond the presumptive penalties set forth in the NOPD Disciplinary Matrix (“Matrix”). We disagree.

Referring to the Matrix, Williams testified that the presumptive penalty for workplace discrimination/harassment is a three-day suspension with aggravating circumstances providing for demotion to dismissal – Bakewell was demoted to sergeant. The presumptive penalty for the state misdemeanor on duty/sexual battery is a thirty-day suspension with an enhanced penalty of demotion to dismissal – Bakewell was dismissed for this violation.

The Matrix provides that the presumptive penalty is the penalty that shall be imposed “if no Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstances are presented at the hearing and specifically articulated in the hearing record.” In the present case, Williams testified that aggravating factors were identified and outlined in the Disciplinary Report. Additionally, the hearing committee determined that “some of the offenses were more egregious and therefore deserving of a greater penalty.” The aggravating factors included:

• As a supervisor, it is a fundamental responsibility to ensure that the workplace remains a safe and professional environment for all employees. However, Lt. Bakewell deliberately disregarded this duty and actively undermined the department's commitment to maintaining a respectful workplace and thus created a toxic work environment;

• Lt. Bakewell sought to actively shield himself from accountability; he enabled a culture of disregard for workplace safety and ethical standards;

• As a Lieutenant of the New Orleans Police Department, maintaining public trust is essential to preserving the integrity of the department and its relationship with the community. In his leadership role, Lt. Bakewell was fully aware of the department's expectations and the critical importance of upholding this trust. However, his actions created a volatile situation that directly threatened the public's confidence in the department.

After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors identified in the investigation, Bakewell was demoted to sergeant and dismissed. While we recognize that termination is considered a harsh remedy, the Matrix does provide for such an enhanced penalty when aggravating circumstances are identified. In Bakewell's case, it is evident from the record that both mitigating and aggravating factors were considered and set forth in the Disciplinary Report. Moreover, as the Louisiana Supreme Court has articulated, “[S]ince the public puts its trust in the police department as a guardian of its safety, it is essential the appointing authority be allowed to establish and enforce appropriate standards of conduct for its employees sworn to uphold that trust.” Regis, 2013-1124, at p. 3, 121 So.3d at 666 (citation omitted).

Considering the applicable legal precepts, and after our thorough review of the record, we find that the NOPD acted within its authority in disciplining Bakewell. Additionally, based on the particular facts of this case, we find that the CSC was not arbitrary or capricious in denying Bakewell's appeal.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the CSC in upholding the NOPD's demotion and termination of Bakewell.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   The complaints also alleged other instances of inappropriate behavior, payroll fraud, as well as Bakewell having his personal vehicle parked at the station with an expired license plate and brake tag.

Judge Karen K. Herman