HENRY BEBA JR v. NEW ORLEANS FIRE DEPARTMENT (2026)

Plaintiff, Henry L. Beba, Jr. (“Beba”), appeals the City of New Orleans Civil Service Commission's (“CSC”) September 28, 2025 summary disposition dismissing his whistleblower appeal as untimely. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCDURAL HISTORY

Beba served on the New Orleans Fire Department (“NOFD”) for over thirty-four years. In 2018, he became District Chief of the Eighth District, Second Platoon (“508”).

In January of 2025, Beba reported to Deputy Chief Larry White (“White”) and Assistant Superintendent Armand Bourdais (“Bourdais”) that District Chief Thomas Ussin (“Ussin”) was sleeping at home while on duty and responding to calls in his personal vehicle. Beba submits that Ussin was admonished but not disciplined.

On March 20, 2025, Bourdais issued an email notifying five NOFD employees, including Beba, of transfers. Beba was transferred from 508 to District Chief of Staff Platoon 2. Ussin was transferred to replace Beba as District Chief of 508.

Beba considered his transfer to be a demotion, noting that he was removed from his permanent position at 508 to a floating Staff Chief position with no fixed district. He also considered his replacement with Ussin to be in retaliation for reporting Ussin some three months earlier.

After consulting with union representatives regarding the transfer, Beba submitted a formal grievance with the NOFD on March 23, 2025.¹ Beba further maintains that on March 23, 2025, he suffered an extraordinary medical event while on duty in his new position. Emergency medical services responded and documented his vital signs, finding his symptoms consistent with acute anxiety and panic physiology. Beba contends that the transfer brought on the mental health event.

In connection with his medical condition, Beba filed a worker's compensation claim on March 23, 2025. In support thereof, Beba submitted a Work Status Form documenting his medical diagnosis as “Adjustment [disorder] with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.” Beba went on medical leave through the end of 2025.

On April 8, 2025, the NOFD issued a response to Beba's formal grievance, stating that Beba's reassignment was made in compliance with all guidelines of the CSC and the NOFD. More specifically, it provided that the decision to reassign Beba was not a disciplinary action as defined by Civil Service Rules. Rather, the decision was based on the consideration that “[d]epartments may assign employees to different shifts, work locations or schedules, as needed for the efficient operation of the Department.”

On July 16, 2025, Beba filed his whistleblower appeal alleging that he was removed from his position and replaced with Ussin as a direct result of reporting Ussin's improper conduct. Beba acknowledges that the appeal was not filed within thirty days pursuant to CSC Rule II, Section 4.3.² However, he advanced a “good cause” exception based on his extraordinary medical circumstances.

In response, the NOFD filed a Motion for Summary Disposition on August 1, 2025, asserting that Beba's appeal was untimely. It further asserted that the reassignment did not constitute a disciplinary action which could be appealed.

Beba filed an opposition to the Motion for Summary Disposition, arguing that the reassignment was in retaliation for his whistleblower action. He further asserted that a good cause exception exists for his delay in filing the appeal. On September 9, 2025, after obtaining counsel, Beba amended his opposition to additionally allege that his transfer was a form of racial discrimination.³

On September 28, 2025, Beba's appeal was summarily dismissed as untimely.⁴ This appeal followed.

Assignments of Error

On appeal, Beba asserts that the CSC erred in: 1) finding that his whistleblower appeal was untimely, considering that the removal from his position was a disciplinary action for which the NOFD failed to give him a written notice; 2) finding that Beba was not entitled to a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Rule II, Section 10.1; and 3) dismissing the appeal without applying equitable tolling and the good cause exception to the timeliness issue because of his extraordinary medical condition.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court recently reiterated the multifaceted standard of review in civil service cases as follows:

First, the review by appellate courts of the factual findings in a civil service case is governed by the manifest error or clearly erroneous standard. Second, when the Commission'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. Instead, on legal issues, appellate courts give no special weight to the findings of the trial court, but exercise their constitutional duty to review questions of law and render judgment on the record. A legal error occurs when a trial court applies the incorrect principles of law and such errors are prejudicial. Finally, a mixed question of fact and law should be accorded great deference by appellate courts under the manifest error standard of review.

Hyde v. New Orleans Fire Dep't, 2025-0114, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/28/25), 417 So.3d 1283, 1285 (quoting Ebbs v. New Orleans Fire Dep't, 2022-0185, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/28/22), 355 So.3d 1115, 1119).

In Woods v. Sewerage and Water Bd. of New Orleans, 2022-0373, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/16/22), 352 So.3d 124, 126, this Court noted that the CSC's granting of a summary disposition is also “subject to a multifaceted standard of review.”

DISCUSSION

Beba first argues that his transfer was a disciplinary action that required a written notice from the NOFD. He maintains that because the NOFD did not issue a disciplinary letter, the tolling of the thirty-day requirement to file his appeal pursuant to CSC Rule II, Section 4.3 did not begin.

The NOFD counters that the transfer of Beba—along with four other employees—did not constitute a disciplinary action pursuant to the CSC Rules. The NOFD submits that Beba was not suspended, fined, or reprimanded, and he received no reduction in pay. Thus, Beba had no right to file an appeal. We agree.

It is undisputed that a disciplinary action requires written notification that starts the running of the thirty-day period in which to file an appeal. However, CSC Rule II, Section 4.1 provides:

Regular employees in the classified service shall have the right to appeal disciplinary actions to the Commission, including dismissal, involuntary retirement, demotion, suspension, fine, reduction in pay, or letters of reprimand as defined in Rule I. However, a ․ transfer ․ shall not be considered a disciplinary action and thus shall not warrant an appeal except as provided in Sections 4.5 [discrimination] and 9.1 [preparation of the record on appeal] of Rule II.

The Civil Service Rules define transfer as “the change of an employee from a position in one organization unit to a position in another organization unit in the same classification; see also ‘Lateral Classification Change.’ ”

In the present case, Beba was not demoted, suspended, or fined as a result of his reassignment. He remained a District Chief at the same rate of pay, but in a floating position. Thus, he was not disciplined, and a disciplinary notice was not required.

Regarding the timeliness issue, Beba filed his whistleblower appeal pursuant to CSC Rule II, Section 10.1 ⁵ , alleging that his transfer was based on retaliation and discrimination for reporting Ussin. He contends that there is no provision in Section 10.1 as to how long after the discriminatory treatment an employee must file an appeal. We find no merit in this argument.

Beba is correct in asserting that CSC Rule II, Section 10.1 does not provide an appeal delay for filing a whistleblower action. However, CSC Rule II, Section 4.7 does provide that persons alleging discrimination “shall file an appeal with the Civil Service Commission within thirty (30) calendar days of the alleged discriminatory act.” Additionally, this Court has recognized that the thirty-day deadline for filing an appeal set forth in CSC Rule II, Section 4.3 “also applies to appeals alleging discrimination.” Woods, 2022-0373, p. 3, 352 So.3d at 126.

Here, it is evident from Beba's claims that he was aware of the alleged discriminatory action on March 20, 2025, when he was transferred and replaced with Ussin. Moreover, Beba specifically stated in his March 23, 2025 formal grievance that he considered the transfer to be retaliatory for reporting Ussin. Based on the clear facts presented, Beba had thirty days from the date of his transfer to file his whistleblower appeal. His appeal was not filed until July 16, 2025.

Beba further argues that his appeal should be considered timely based on a good cause exception. He contends that he was unable to file his appeal sooner because of the extraordinary circumstances of his medical condition, which occurred three days after the transfer. We find no merit in this argument. As this Court recognized in Woods, 2022-0373, p. 4, 352 So.3d at 126, “the Rules of the Civil Service Commission do not provide an exception to the thirty-day deadline for good cause shown.”

Finally, Beba argues that his seniority-based permanent position at 508 constitutes a protected property interest under Louisiana Civil Service laws. Therefore, dismissing the appeal without a hearing was a denial of his due process rights. While we recognize the fundamental due process rights afforded to civil service employees, we also recognize that the CSC was well within its rights under CSC Rule II, Section 6.1(d) to summarily dismiss an untimely appeal. Thus, we find no merit in Beba's due process argument.

CONCLUSION

Based on our review of the record and the applicable law, we find that Beba's transfer did not constitute a disciplinary action. Thus, the NOFD was not required to issue a written disciplinary notice. Considering that Beba's replacement with Ussin is the basis for his discrimination claim, Beba had thirty days from the date of the transfer to file his whistleblower appeal. His appeal was not timely filed. Additionally, Beba's alleged medical condition brought on by the transfer does not justify the delay in filing the appeal. As noted above, the law does not provide for a good cause exception to the thirty-day deadline.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the September 28, 2025 summary disposition dismissing Beba's CSC whistleblower appeal as untimely. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   Beba contends that he prepared the formal grievance on either March 21 or 22, and it was “scheduled in Outlook to auto-send at 12:00 a.m. on March 23, 2025, the next scheduled tour for Second Platoon.”

2.   CSC Rule II, Section 4.3 provides that “[a]ppeals to the Commission must be actually received in the Department of Civil Service no later than the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) calendar day following the date of the disciplinary letter provided to the employee by the Appointing Authority.”

3.   Beba asserts racial discrimination based on the fact that Beba is white, Ussin is black, and Superintendent Nelson, who approved giving Ussin the position at 508, is also black.

4.   CSC Rule II, Section 6.1(d) allows for summary dismissal when “the appeal has not been timely filed as required by Rule II, Section 4.3 or 4.7 of the Commission's Rules.”

5.   CSC Rule II, Section 10.1 provides:No employee shall be subjected to discipline or discriminatory treatment by an appointing authority because he or she gives information, testimony or evidence in a prudent manner to appropriate authorities concerning conduct prohibited by law or regulation which he or she reasonably believes to have been engaged in by any person(s). If the employee incurs such treatment despite this admonition, he or she shall have a right of appeal to this Commission.

Judge Karen K. Herman