Jones v. Trepagnier — Louisiana Supreme Court restores ruling that New Orleans court employees are unclassified

Case
Hon. Robert E. Jones, III, Administrative Judge, et al. v. Amy Trepagnier, in Her Capacity as Director of Personnel of the City of New Orleans, and the Civil Service Commission for the City of New Orleans, consolidated with Hon. Robert E. Jones, III, Administrative Judge, et al. v. Amy Trepagnier, in Her Capacity as Director of Personnel of the City of New Orleans, and the Civil Service Commissioner for the City of New Orleans
Court
Louisiana Supreme Court
Judge
Guidry, J.
Date Decided
October 30, 2026
Docket No.
2026-C-00358
Topics
Civil service; Judicial employees; Unclassified service; Mandamus
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

The judges of the Municipal and Traffic Court of New Orleans sought to hire a court technology officer to advise court leadership and carry out technology plans. Although the City approved the new position, the City Civil Service Commission denied the judges’ request to treat it as unclassified, reasoning that comparable positions existed in classified service.

The judges sought mandamus and declaratory relief. The trial court ordered the City’s personnel director to place the position on the unclassified payroll and declared that the Commission lacked authority over the number and terms of employment of persons employed by the court’s judges. The Fourth Circuit reversed.

The Court’s Holding

The Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the court of appeal’s judgment and reinstated the trial court’s rulings. Under Louisiana Constitution article X, section 2(B)(10), employees of offices established under article V—including the Municipal and Traffic Court—are unclassified, except employees in the office of that court’s clerk.

The court held that the constitutional provision allowing a civil service commission to add “additional positions” to unclassified service applies where the Constitution itself limits the number of unclassified positions, such as certain private-secretary and confidential-assistant positions. It does not give the Commission jurisdiction over the Municipal and Traffic Court’s unclassified employees. Nor did La. R.S. 13:2496 limit the judges collectively to four unclassified employees or require Commission approval for additional positions. Because the technology-officer position was unclassified, the personnel director had a ministerial duty to enter it on the unclassified payroll.

Key Takeaways

  • Municipal and Traffic Court employees are constitutionally unclassified, except employees of the court clerk’s office.
  • The New Orleans Civil Service Commission cannot regulate the number or employment terms of those unclassified court employees.
  • The personnel director could be compelled by mandamus to place the approved technology-officer position on the unclassified payroll.

Why It Matters

The decision delineates the boundary between New Orleans civil-service authority and the judiciary’s constitutional authority over its employees. It confirms that the Commission’s power to add positions to unclassified service does not permit it to control positions the Constitution already places in that service.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top