WILLIAM BRIGGS v. DEPARTMENT OF FIRE (2026)

This case involves an appeal from the Civil Service Commission of the City of New Orleans (the “CSC”). The appointing authority, the New Orleans Fire Department (the “NOFD”), imposed a fine of $1,810.00 upon Appellant, William Briggs (“Firefighter Briggs”), for violating the NOFD's rules and regulations pertaining to the care and maintenance of NOFD property. The CSC denied Firefighter Briggs’ appeal and upheld the imposition of the $1,810.00 fine. For the reasons more fully set out below, we affirm the decision of the CSC.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 20, 2025, the NOFD issued Firefighter Briggs a Notification of Fine, imposing a $1,810.00 fine for the loss of his departmentally-issued bunker jacket ¹ following a March 21, 2025 structure fire. The NOFD determined that the loss violated Section 6.7, No. 37 of its Rules and Regulations,² which governs employees’ responsibility for departmental property. Firefighter Briggs appealed the disciplinary action and filed a Disciplinary Appeal Form with the CSC. A hearing was held before a hearing examiner on August 26, 2025. The pertinent testimony is summarized below.

William Briggs

Firefighter Briggs, appearing pro se, testified that he is a firefighter assigned to Engine 27 on the 1st Platoon. On March 21, 2025, he was called to a structure fire at a residential home in his territory. After extinguishing the fire with his team, Firefighter Briggs stated that it was his normal routine to rinse off his equipment, which is referred to as “decon.” His operator, who was the driver of the fire truck, sprayed him down and then he hung his bunker jacket on the intake ³ to let it drip dry. Soon thereafter, the chief on scene released Firefighter Briggs and his team, and they left. Once he returned to the fire station, he realized that he forgot his coat on the intake. Firefighter Briggs immediately notified Captain Gavin Murray (“Capt. Murray”), and the two returned to search for it. They canvassed the area but were unable to recover the jacket. Firefighter Briggs testified that he believed his bunker jacket had blown off the intake and was subsequently taken by someone.

After Capt. Murray and Firefighter Briggs returned to the fire station from canvassing the area, they immediately notified their chief and reported the incident to the police. Two hours later, Firefighter Briggs found out from Capt. Murray that the NOFD was going to conduct an investigation. Capt. Murray told Firefighter Briggs that the administration instructed him to file disciplinary charges against Firefighter Briggs. On March 27, 2025, Firefighter Briggs was charged with the loss of his bunker jacket. He testified that on May 5, 2025, he received an email from the NOFD instructing him that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on May 8, 2025. Per advice from his superior, Firefighter Briggs replied to the email writing that he was in Florida on vacation and requested a thirty-day extension for the disciplinary hearing, which was granted.

Firefighter Briggs then read aloud a portion of the Louisiana Firefighter Bill of Rights at the hearing,⁴ “[a]ny investigation of a fire employee which is conducted pursuant to this Subpart shall be completed within sixty days, including the conducting of any pre-disciplinary hearing or conference.” La. R.S. 33:2186(A). He explained that considering this, as of May 8, 2025—the date of the original pre-disciplinary hearing—only 42 days of the investigatory period would have passed, and he returned to work on May 17, 2025. Firefighter Briggs said that he did not receive a new date for the pre-disciplinary hearing until he received an email on June 13, 2025, instructing him that the pre-disciplinary would now take place on June 19, 2025. He confirmed that he responded to the June 13, 2025 email and agreed to the new date.

Firefighter Briggs explained to the hearing examiner that his appeal should be granted because he requested a thirty-day extension for a pre-disciplinary hearing that was scheduled to take place on May 8, 2025. According to Firefighter Briggs, that thirty-day extension would have lapsed on June 7, 2025, which was 72 days from the date the investigation began on March 27, 2025. He concluded that the NOFD violated his Firefighter Bill of Rights when they extended the pre-disciplinary hearing beyond the thirty-day extension that he requested.

Deputy Superintendent Armand Bourdais

Deputy Superintendent Armand Bourdais (“Dep. Supt. Bourdais”) testified that he has served as Dep. Supt. with the NOFD for five years and that his responsibilities are to oversee the day to day operations of the department. He also fills in for the superintendent when he is not available. Dep. Supt. Bourdais said that he is familiar with Firefighter Briggs and his March 21, 2025 disciplinary matter, and that he reviewed the case and supporting documentation in connection with the pre-disciplinary hearing.

Dep. Supt. Bourdais testified that Firefighter Briggs’ original pre-disciplinary hearing was scheduled on May 8, 2025. However, Firefighter Briggs requested a thirty-day extension for his pre-disciplinary hearing because he was on vacation in Florida. Dep. Supt. Bourdais relayed that the NOFD interpreted that request as thirty additional days to the statutory sixty-day period, not thirty days from May 8, 2025, which was the original date of the pre-disciplinary hearing. According to Dep. Supt. Bourdais, the deadline on which the pre-disciplinary hearing could be held following the extension was June 27, 2025.

Dep. Supt. Bourdais testified that the pre-disciplinary hearing was held on June 19, 2025. He explained that the policy regarding equipment is that everyone who has assigned equipment is responsible for the care and maintenance of that equipment. He further explained that since the superintendent was not in town at the time of the disciplinary hearing, he reviewed the case, all of the supporting documentation, and signed off on the written notice imposing the fine upon Firefighter Briggs. According to Dep. Supt. Bourdais the fine was determined by the NOFD's Logistics Division, and it provided them with the cost of replacing the bunker jacket. He said that the loss of equipment has a financial impact on the NOFD that it does not have the budget to bear.

Superintendent of Fire Roman Nelson

Superintendent Roman Nelson (“Supt. Nelson”) testified that he has been the Superintendent of NOFD for a little less than five years. His responsibility is to ensure the orderly and efficient operation of the NOFD. He became aware of the March 21, 2025 incident with Firefighter Briggs after reading the investigatory reports and the decision of the hearing panel. Supt. Nelson was not involved in the investigation, but he was informed of the final determination.

Supt. Nelson stated that the loss of the bunker jacket violated the NOFD's Rules and Regulations Section 6.7, No. 37, which provides that all members of NOFD are responsible for the care and maintenance of all departmental property, protective clothing, safety equipment, radio equipment, et cetera. According to Supt. Nelson, when there is a violation of policy the NOFD member is scheduled for a peer review hearing, which is normally conducted by the deputy chief. After the hearing is conducted, a determination is made and a recommendation is made to Supt. Nelson for the administration of discipline. In this instance, Supt. Nelson stated that the fine imposed upon Firefighter Briggs was the NOFD's standard for lost gear.

Supt. Nelson explained that the Louisiana Firefighter Bill of Rights allows the NOFD to request an extension from the CSC, and on May 8, 2025, Firefighter Briggs requested a thirty-day extension. On June 13, 2025, Firefighter Briggs responded to an email from NOFD, indicating that he reviewed everything and that he would appear at the pre-disciplinary hearing on June 19, 2025.

After hearing the testimony of witnesses on August 26, 2025, and reviewing the evidence, the hearing examiner issued findings to the CSC, in which he concluded that the NOFD failed to comply with the Firefighter Bill of Rights and that Firefighter Briggs’ fine should be rescinded. On December 11, 2025, the CSC disagreed with the hearing examiner and denied Firefighter Briggs’ appeal. The CSC concluded that he had waived the procedural protections afforded by the Firefighter Bill of Rights by requesting a continuance of his pre-disciplinary hearing and by not objecting to the timing of the investigation prior to the discipline being imposed. This appeal timely follows.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court applies a multifaceted standard of review in civil service cases. “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.” Ebbs v. New Orleans Fire Dep't, 22-0185, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/28/22), 355 So.3d 1115, 1119 (citing Gant v. New Orleans Police Dep't, 19-0640, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/4/19), 286 So.3d 524, 529. “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.” Id. “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.” Id. A legal error occurs when a trial court applies the incorrect principles of law and such errors are prejudicial. Id. “Finally, a mixed question of fact and law should be accorded great deference by appellate courts under the manifest error standard of review.” Id.

“In an appeal before the Commission, pursuant to La. Const. Art. X, § 8(A), the burden of proof rests with the appointing authority, which must prove 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.’ ” Pitre v. Dep't of Fire, 21-0632, pp. 7-8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/20/22), 338 So.3d 70, 76 (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Firefighter Briggs assigns one error. Namely, that the CSC erred in its application of the procedural protections provided to him pursuant to the Firefighter Bill of Rights codified in La. R.S. 33:2181 et seq. Firefighter Briggs asserts that the CSC erred in finding that the NOFD complied with the sixty-day investigatory period set forth in the Firefighter Bill of Rights. Specifically, he argues that his request to continue the pre-disciplinary hearing did not extend the NOFD's investigation beyond the period that he requested in writing. We disagree.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:2181 et seq., commonly referred to as the Firefighter Bill of Rights, bestows procedural protections upon firefighters under disciplinary investigation. It provides in pertinent part:

A. Unless context otherwise requires, the following terms when used in this Subpart shall be given the meanings assigned below:

* * *

(2) “Interrogation” includes but is not limited to any formal interview, inquiry, or questioning of any fire employee by the appointing authority or the appointing authority's designee regarding misconduct, allegations of misconduct, or policy violation. An initial inquiry conducted by the fire employee's immediate supervisors shall not be considered an interrogation.

B. Whenever a fire employee is under investigation, the following minimum standards shall apply:

(1) Prior to commencing a formal investigation of a fire employee, the appointing authority shall notify the employee in writing of the nature of the investigation, of the identity and authority of the person conducting such investigation, and of the specific charges or violations being investigated.

* * *

C. No fire employee shall be disciplined, demoted, dismissed or be subject to any adverse action unless the investigation is conducted in accordance with this Subpart. Any discipline, demotion, dismissal or adverse action of any sort taken against a fire employee without complete compliance with the provisions of this Subpart is an absolute nullity.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:2186, entitled Investigations, provides in pertinent part:

A. Any investigation of a fire employee which is conducted pursuant to this Subpart shall be completed within sixty days, including the conducting of any pre-disciplinary hearing or conference. However, ․ the fire department may petition the local governing authority for an extension of the time within which to complete the investigation.

B. The governing authority shall set the matter for hearing and shall provide notice of the hearing to the fire employee who is under investigation. The fire employee who is under investigation shall have the right to attend the hearing and to present evidence and arguments against the extension. If the governing authority finds that the fire department has shown good cause for the granting of an extension of time within which to complete the investigation, it shall grant an extension of up to sixty days.

In Ebbs, this Court addressed the sixty-day investigatory period and examined whether written communications between a firefighter and the NOFD established an agreement extending the statutory investigatory period. 22-0185, pp. 12-13, 355 So.3d at 1122-23. The plaintiff in Ebbs contended that the NOFD conducted his pre-termination hearing beyond the sixty-day rule required under La. R.S. 33:2186(A). Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the hearing should have taken place no later than September 6, 2020; however, the hearing did not take place until September 11, 2020. He further contended that there was no formal written agreement to extend the investigation. This Court upheld the CSC's decision, finding that the plaintiff, “through his counsel's email correspondence requesting and finally agreeing to a delay in the pre-termination hearing, agreed in writing to extend the investigation until September 11, 2020.”

This Court is persuaded by the analysis set forth in Ebbs. Similar to the facts of that case, Firefighter Briggs sent written correspondence on May 8, 2025, requesting a thirty-day extension for the pre- disciplinary hearing because he would be out of town. Then, on June 13, 2025, Firefighter Briggs received an email from the NOFD, which notified him that the pre-disciplinary hearing would now take place on June 19, 2025. In response to that June 13, 2025 email, he said that he “would be there” in reference to the pre-disciplinary hearing scheduled on June 19, 2025. Moreover, at the hearing on August 26, 2025, Firefighter Briggs testified that he agreed to the June 19, 2025 date. Although Firefighter Briggs initially requested only a thirty-day extension, his subsequent written agreement to the June 19, 2025 hearing date demonstrates his consent to an extension beyond the period originally requested.

Accordingly, we find that the CSC was not manifestly erroneous in its decision that the NOFD complied with the mandates set forth in La. R.S. 33:2186.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the December 11, 2025 decision rendered by the Civil Service Commission.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   Bunker gear, is personal protective equipment worn by firefighters during firefighting operations. Full bunker gear includes a jacket, trousers, gloves, boots, hood, helmet and a self-contained breathing apparatus.

2.   Section 6.7, No. 37 of the NOFD's rules and regulations provides:Members are responsible for the care and maintenance of all Departmental property, protective clothing, safety equipment, radio equipment, etc., which is assigned to them.

3.   The term “intake” is referring to the fire engine's pump intake—the large opening or valve on the pump panel where water enters the engine from a hydrant or other source. When firefighters need to hang their fire coats to dry, they often use the intake area on the pumper as a convenient, open space. Because it is an open, elevated area, it is also a good spot for air circulation, which helps the coats quickly dry.

4.   Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:2186 is the Louisiana Firefighter Bill of Rights, and it will be more fully discussed, infra.

Judge Paula A. Brown