Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shreveport Police Cpl. Bobby Entrekin, Et Al Vs City of Shreveport

    Uploaded by

    Curtis
    6K views7 pages
    Shreveport police Cpl. Bobby Entrekin, et al vs City of Shreveport

    Original Title

    Shreveport police Cpl. Bobby Entrekin, et al vs City of Shreveport

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Shreveport police Cpl. Bobby Entrekin, et al vs City of Shreveport

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6K views7 pages

    Shreveport Police Cpl. Bobby Entrekin, Et Al Vs City of Shreveport

    Uploaded by

    Curtis
    Shreveport police Cpl. Bobby Entrekin, et al vs City of Shreveport

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 7
    CPL. BOBBY ENTREKIN, ET AL NUMBER: 624,450-C versus FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF SHREVEPORT and INDIVIDUALLY iD IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE ‘CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA. ‘STATEMENT OF FACTS ‘At issue in this case is whether Shreveport Police Deparment General Order (SPD GO) 301.02 applies to Shreveport police officers wh reported for duty during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether they are entitled 10 compensatory time and/or overtime pay. To address this question, Lv OOOCVBENYISETOTOTER it is crucial 10 reflect on the many complexities and challenges that COVID-19 presented, particularly for law enforcement officer in Shreveport, Louisiana. (On January 20,2020, the Centers for Discase Cont (CDC) repo the frst bortory confirmed ease of COVID-19 in the United States, Within twelve (12) wesks, the United Stes surpaseed lly asthe county with the mos reported COVID-19 deaths approximately 24,000 by April 11, 2020), See National Library of Medicine. On March 11, 2020, the World Heath Organization designated the COVID-19 outbreak at « worldwide pandemic, Silay, inthe United States the federal goverment escalated fom a publishes tse to snasional emergency ty March 13,2020. On March 16, 2020, every state declared a sate of emergency or» public hnalth emergency. 1d ‘On March 11, 2020, Governor John Bel Edwards issued Proclamation 25 JBE 2020 which declared a statewide public health emergency from COVID-I9 which crested emergency conditions that threatened the lives and health of Louisiana citizens. On March 22, 2020, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation 33 JBE 2020 which included a ‘Stay at Home’ order (except for essential activities specified in the ores) which limited public gatherings to fewer than ten people, and required numerous closings of buildings. This order was extended and remained in place until ‘May 15,2020, when Governor Edwards issued Proclamation $8 JBE 2020 which moved Louisiana into Phase One of reopening. “The Shreveport City Council administrative and regular council meeting for March 24, 2020, was canceled because of te COVID-19 Public Health Emergency delareby the Govemor. ‘The Ciy Council administrative and regular cosneil meetings or Api 10,2425 trough MAL ED glen a oe Tar Woea Sere 2000, wereld vin vide conference On Api 2, 202, Mayor Adan Pttns sed Mayoral Declaration ofa Sate of Emergency forthe iy of Shreveport. This declaration acknowledged hate Ste of Energy hadley ben dese by President Trp and ovemor Edel Gn May 1, 2020, Mayor Perkins renewed the Sat of Emergency for the City for another 30 days. During City Council meting on May 12,202, Mayor Perkins made comments conering pens to sally reopen Government Plaza and ater ity buildings in compliance wih the les ‘proclamation issued by Governor Edwards. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On June 25, 2020, Plaintiff, “on behalf of all officers currently employed by the ‘Shreveport Police Department,” filed Petition for Unps ‘Wages and Other Relief. See Appendix 2, Plaintiffs seek payment of overtime andlor compensatory ti pursuant to SPD GO 301.02. Defendant-Applicant, the City of Shreveport, filed @ Motion for Summary Judgment seeking judgment declaring that SPD GO 301.02 was not applicable to time worked during the COVID-I9 pandemic because, according to Defendants, there was no inclement weather ‘emergency duting tht time period nor were there any off 3 closures of City Hall asa result of any emergency during that time period Pleintffs filed across Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking judgment declaring that SPD GO 301.02 was applicable and that Plantifs were entitled to compensatory time andlor overtime pay as set forth in the policy, while reserving the calculations ofthe emounts owed for tral, See Appendix 4 Both motions were heard by the Court on April 11, 2022. Finding genuine issues of fet, the Court denied both parties" Motions for Summary Judgment. ‘This matter came before the Court for tal on February 1, 2023. The following witnesses ‘ested te iE RS aN pis g20 bfica= the liblty and damages phases, The sole sue before the Court fr tis opinion is wheter the ‘SPD GO 201.02 applied othe COVID-19 pandemic and entes Pani to ommpenstory de and/or overtime pay. ‘At the conclusion ofthe tral, the Court took the matter under advisement. Plaintiff and “Defendant each submitted Post-Trial Memoranda on February 24 and 27, 2023, respectively. After ample consideration of the la, evidence and the argunients of eouisel, the Court renders the following opinion: DISCUSSION ‘SPD GO 301.02 reads in pertinent part: | PURPOSE—To estzblish a clear and equitable procedure concerning those persons who do report for duty on days when City Hall is offically closed ddue to severe inclement weather or some other emergency as declered by the mayor. 1. POLICY—In the interest of providing smoothly fumetioning law ‘enforcement service tothe citizens ofthe City of Shreveport, it shall be the policy ‘of the Shreveport Police Department to require all members to report for duty on scheduled days. When City Halli officially closed due to an emergency declared by the mayor, those employees reporting for duty shall be compensated with time off at a iter date, IML, DEFINITIONS—Inclement weather emergency: A situation where ‘weather of road eonditions (typically snow or ice) make it necessary to inform City ‘employees that they should not report for their scheduled work shift or that they should terminate their normal work sift peor tits schedvled completion. Because ‘of the nature oftheir work znd the needs of the Shreveport Police Department, some civil service employees shall be required to report for work or remain on duty to provide a minimum requited level of service. Inclement weather and other ‘emergencies shall be declared by the mayor, chief administrative officer or designee. (Emphasis added.) In their Post-Tril Memorandum Defendant argue that, in order forthe Court o find in {avor of Plaintiff, the Court must answer each of the following inthe affirmative: 1) Whether Cty Hall was “officially closed"? 2) Whether City Hall was officially closed based upon the instruction of “the mayor, chief administrative office or designee? 3) Whether City Hall was offically closed “ue to an emergency condition”? ‘The Coun will address each ofthese issues in order. Fs, the Court insta City Hall wa “offialy closed for purposes ofSPD GO 301.02, ‘The Court agrees with Plaintiff that “closed to the public is elosed for purposes of SPD GO 302.02." Pl, Pos-Trial Memorandum, p. 1. Defendants attempt to make a distinction between “elosed tothe public” and “ofcally closed." However, the SPD GO 3001.02 does not define “officially closed.” SPOROOOGGNYISETOTS TFS j : ‘Addonlly, considerable weight should be given othe fact that Defendants used SPD (60 301.02 asthe vehicle to poy officers who were not reporting for du. This i significant tecause $P GO 30.02 requires City Hal to be “oft lose." The Ciy's minimum staffing plan adopted oxi March 72,2020, forthe COVID-I9 emergency, sted that any cv sevice personnel not t work “wl be sted a “inclement? on ths inecards which includes emergency situations sch 5 this one.” PL. Ex 9a . 000046 & Pl. Ex 8. This writen ple incorporated icndance end tinekeping requirements of SPD GO 301.02 and SPD GO 301.13(VXB}13) Aiton ly, 3 has was the City's position and policy that officers who were not working had an “I” placed on their time cards.' For the to take this position, City Hall had to have been officially closed. The Court is also persuaded by Plaimiff" argument tht if the emergeney qualified for an “T" on time sheets for ‘those not reporting for duty, then it should qualify foran “I” for those who were eporing fr duty. CAO NIN signed an fv filed in suport of the City’s Main for Summary Judgment in which he atest, “Following he ‘Sty at Home Order issued by Governor John Bat ‘Edwards a Masch 2020 a5 result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Government Plaza was closed to ‘he public ony. City employees continued to report to work tthe offices at Government Plaza although some employees were authorized fo work remotely from their homes, “City Hal srs never hosed, and all esata ely government functions continued.” (Emphasis added) See QUINN: cod tp 3: The affidavit of omer CAO IEMs evo testimony ta Goverment Pisa wa osed wo te public nd some employes wore authorized to work ohne jn contest the cy employees wh performed stent gverament anon” such asthe Pin, were reed 1 ep fr dy. The very puget of te “equine proce” contin’ in SPD GO 301.02 is to compensate tote SPD employees who were rege report for daty ding "emerencis" whi other SPD employes were lowed 1 ‘work remotely fom their homes.” Second, the Court finds Cty Hell was officially closed atthe instruction of “the mayor, ‘chief administrative officer or designe.” The Court notes the significance of the fect that during the May 12, 2020 City Council Meeting, Mayor Perkins “made comments conceming the plans 10 safely reopen Government Plaza and otber city buildings in compliance with the latest "raante clement water BsoeveaBONYISETOTO ITD proclamation issued by Governor Edwards.” Pl Ex. 35 (Emphasis added). The Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ contention that City Hall would have to be closed to be reopened Further, on May 1, 2020, Mayor Perkins desired COVID-19 “continues to pose an Imminent threat othe City of Shreveport an treatens the safety and security ofthe City of Shreveport” PL Ex. 5. The use ofthe phrase “continue o pose an imminent thea implies hat a pubic emergeney was ongoing. Upon crefilensideraton of the language of SPD GO 301.02, the Court agrees with Ps {8 contention tat nothing in SPD GO 301.02 requires the Mayor's

    You might also like