Background
Kendall Chopin worked for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development as a probationary Mobile Equipment Operator 2. After DOTD terminated him on April 16, 2025, he appealed to the Louisiana State Civil Service Commission, alleging racial discrimination, disability bias, retaliation, and procedural violations.
A Civil Service Commission referee notified Chopin that several claims were outside the Commission’s jurisdiction or unavailable to him as a probationary employee and directed him to plead specific facts supporting racial discrimination. After reviewing Chopin’s amended appeal, the referee concluded that he had not pleaded sufficient facts establishing a right of appeal and summarily dismissed the matter. The Commission denied review, and Chopin appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit affirmed. Because Chopin was a probationary employee, DOTD could separate him at any time, and he lacked the disciplinary-appeal rights afforded to permanent classified employees. His appeal therefore depended on sufficiently alleging discrimination within the categories recognized by the applicable civil-service provisions or a violation of the Civil Service Article or Rules.
Chopin’s allegations did not satisfy Civil Service Rule 13.11(d). Although he identified instances in which a white coworker allegedly received light duty, other employees received additional commercial-driver training, and another white employee allegedly avoided consequences for misconduct, he omitted material details such as dates, full names, employment status, race of some proposed comparators, and facts connecting those events to his termination. His allegations involving racial slurs and his interracial relationship likewise lacked the required factual specificity.
The court also rejected Chopin’s argument that the referee decided the matter on an incomplete record. The referee gave him fifteen days to cure the pleading defects, and the submission he filed on July 19, 2025, came after the July 17 deadline. The referee therefore did not act unreasonably or impose an undue burden by declining to consider that filing and its additional materials or claims.
Key Takeaways
- A probationary Louisiana classified employee does not have the same right as a permanent employee to appeal a termination as a disciplinary action.
- A civil-service discrimination appeal must plead specific facts in enough detail for the employing agency to prepare a defense; conclusory allegations and inadequately identified comparators are insufficient.
- A referee may decline to consider an amended submission filed after the deadline provided for curing defects, particularly when it adds new claims or supporting materials.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict pleading burden facing probationary classified employees who challenge separation through Louisiana’s civil-service process. Identifying alleged unequal treatment is not enough: the appeal must supply concrete details about the challenged acts, relevant dates, responsible persons, comparators, and the asserted discriminatory connection.
The ruling also shows that pro se status and asserted educational or mental-health barriers do not excuse noncompliance with Civil Service Rule 13.11(d) or extend a stated amendment deadline.