When individuals choose to work for the government, they often accept lower salaries than they might earn in the private sector in exchange for meaningful public service, stable fringe benefits such as pensions and health insurance, and the protections afforded by civil service. Many government employees serve as civil service employees, or “civil servants.” These professionals work at various levels of government in nonpolitical and nonjudicial roles. Their responsibilities include critical public functions such as law enforcement, fire protection, infrastructure development, resource management, citizen protection, and the delivery of essential government services. Unlike elected or appointed officials, civil servants are generally hired based on qualifications, merit, and, in many instances, the results of civil service examinations. Civil service employees play a vital role in ensuring the effective operation of government and in protecting life, property, and individual freedoms through the fair enforcement of laws and regulations.

Civil service protections were created, in part, to prevent the “spoils system,” a practice in which political leaders removed qualified public employees in order to reward political supporters or make politically motivated appointments. Individuals placed in positions through this system often lacked the training, experience, or qualifications necessary to perform the work effectively. As a result, government operations could become inefficient, public services could suffer, and experienced employees could be displaced for reasons unrelated to merit or performance. In practical terms, appointing individuals without relevant knowledge or experience to important public positions can harm both the public and the employees who depend on fair and competent government administration. Civil service protections help ensure that public employment decisions are based on merit rather than politics.

Despite the important public policy and legal principles underlying civil service employment, disputes can arise when political appointees or supervisors attempt to remove or discipline civil service employees for improper reasons. In some situations, an appointee may seek to remove employees who possess greater institutional knowledge, may act out of personal dislike or jealousy, or may wish to create opportunities for friends, relatives, or political allies. Whatever the motivation, the practical result is often the same: a dedicated civil servant is forced to defend his or her career. Unfortunately, these disputes may arise even when an employee is approaching retirement and has devoted many years to public service.

When a political appointee or supervisor seeks to end the career of a civil servant in order to hire friends, relatives, or political supporters, the decision cannot lawfully rest on personal preference or authority alone. Discipline or termination of a civil service employee generally requires proof of a policy or rule violation. The employee must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations, although that response may not always receive fair consideration at the initial stage. Fortunately, the process does not end there. Civil service employees typically have the right to appeal disciplinary action to the appropriate civil service board, whether at the city, parish, or state level. At the hearing, the government bears the burden of proving the alleged violation and demonstrating that the imposed penalty is justified.

Civil service appeal procedures are often governed by rules created by the governmental entity itself. As a result, the process may feel weighted in favor of the government. For example, in some proceedings, the government may not be required to disclose its evidence or witnesses until the day of the hearing. Witnesses may also be current government employees who feel pressure, whether direct or indirect, to support their employer’s position. In addition, while the government has access to public resources to fund its legal representation, a successful employee may be entitled to only limited reimbursement of attorney’s fees, often far less than the actual cost of representation. In some cases, even after prevailing, a civil servant may continue to face repeated write-ups, disciplinary actions, or appeals that appear designed to discourage or burden the employee.

Over the years, I have seen examples of this type of repeated disciplinary pressure. In one case, an employee was written up for taking photographs of a timecard to confirm that time was being properly documented. In another, an employee was disciplined despite being assigned an unreasonable workload—approximately 120 hours of work to be completed within a 40-hour workweek—including assignments requiring academic papers with bibliographies. In a separate matter, an employee was written up for performing a task exactly as instructed, even though the supervisor had directed the employee in writing to complete that task. In each of these situations, a political appointee or supervisor presented the allegations at a civil service hearing as though they were serious rule or policy violations. These examples illustrate how civil service proceedings can sometimes be used to advance weak or improper disciplinary claims, wasting public resources and placing unnecessary strain on public employees.

There are also cases in which a civil servant may be disciplined for a valid reason, but the penalty imposed is excessive or disproportionate to the alleged violation. In those circumstances, the employee still has the right to appeal, and the civil service board may determine whether the discipline was appropriate under the facts and applicable rules.



Civil servants perform essential work for our communities, and when they face a civil service dispute, they need an attorney who understands the process, the rules, and the practical challenges involved. Thomas “Tommy” Davenport, Jr. has significant experience in civil service matters. He has served as a civil service board member, represented a civil service board, and advocated on behalf of numerous civil servants. His background gives him a practical understanding of civil service disputes and enables him to effectively represent civil service employees when their careers and reputations are at stake.