Reginald Brown was employed as a corporal and Interim Chief of Police for the Monroe Police Department (MPD) in Louisiana. On July 6, 2020, just before a contested mayoral election, officers informed Brown of an incident involving alleged excessive force. Brown notified the city attorney, placed the implicated officers on administrative leave, and informed the mayor that he would open criminal and administrative investigations immediately. The following day, Brown reviewed the body camera footage related to the incident.
On July 9, the city attorney contacted Brown, requesting that he refer the investigation to the Louisiana State Police. Brown refused, stating he had already initiated a criminal investigation within the MPD. That weekend, the incumbent mayor who appointed Brown as Interim Chief of Police lost the election and the following Monday, Brown reversed course and referred the matter to the Louisiana State Police to initiate a criminal investigation into the excessive force complaint.
On September 7, 2020, Brown received a letter from the newly appointed Chief of Police, Eugene Ellis, informing him of an ongoing investigation into his potential misconduct regarding the excessive force case. Brown was instructed to participate in an interview, and he retained legal counsel. Approximately one month later, Brown denied delaying the investigation into the excessive force case because of the upcoming mayoral election. He later received instructions to take a polygraph test on October 12, 2020, and was advised that termination would result if he did not submit to the test. During the polygraph, the examiner asked Brown the same questions from the previous interview. Brown again stated that he did not delay the investigation due to the impending mayoral election.
The polygraph examiner determined that Brown’s answers were deceptive, indicating that he lied. Another polygraph examiner reviewed the results and came to the same conclusion. Two days after the polygraph, Ellis sent Brown a pre-disciplinary hearing letter, stating that Brown’s “inconsistent investigative decisions immediately preceding and following the July 11, 2020, City mayoral election seemed very suspect.” He also wrote that the polygraph results indicated Brown answered interview questions “deceptively,” and that being untruthful during an interrogation and failing a polygraph examination impair the efficient and effective operation of MPD. Ellis wrote that Brown’s results indicated that he “purposely delayed” contacting the Louisiana State Police because of the mayoral election.
Brown attended a pre-disciplinary hearing before the newly appointed Chief, Victor Zordan, on November 5, 2020, accompanied by legal counsel. On November 23, he received a letter from Zordan discharging him from the MPD.
Brown appealed his termination to the Monroe Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board alleging that the MPD did not act in good faith. On March 17, 2022, the Board found that the MPD acted in good faith, but that Brown’s punishment was “not commensurate with the offense.” The Board modified Brown’s termination to suspension for 90 days without pay.
In the meantime, Brown and his wife sued the City of Monroe and many other parties in a Louisiana state court. Brown alleged the City, Mayor Ellis, former Chief Ellis, Chief Zordan, and Mike Fendall violated his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 by failing to provide him with “a detailed description of the erroneous charges against him,” failing to provide him with the identities of the individuals involved and barring his attorney from the room during the polygraph examination. The Browns also sued for loss of consortium.
The defendants removed the case to district court. The City of Monroe and Zordan filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion, and the Browns appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the motion for summary judgment.
Addressing Brown’s claims of due process violations, the Court noted that due process requires only that an employee receive “notice and an opportunity to respond.” Brown claimed that Zordan did not inform him of the nature of the charges against him which violated the police officers Bill of Rights, but the Court found that the record indicated otherwise: “Brown received a letter on September 7, 2020, that stated he was being investigated for possible misconduct committed by him regarding his knowledge and handling of the complaint of excessive force.”
The Court also decided: “Brown received notice about the allegations, charges, and evidence against him, and he was able to attend a pre-termination hearing with counsel. By itself, the above timeline indicates neither the City nor Zordan violated Brown’s procedural due process rights. But, since Brown also received a lengthy post-termination review by the Board, these pre-termination procedures are more than sufficient to satisfy due process.” As such, the Court concluded that Brown failed to show Zordan violated his constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process. The Court resolved the issue of the defendants’ allegedly arbitrary and capricious termination of Brown on the same grounds.
Regarding the claim that the district court erred in finding Brown’s wife’s loss of consortium claim was improper, the Court noted that “false accusations by the Defendants levied against her husband had caused her and her family emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, loss of consortium, among other things.” However, the Court also stated that “a loss of consortium claim cannot be brought under Section 1983; it is a derivative claim arising out of a primary tort against another person.”
Brown v. City of Monroe, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27883 (5th Cir. 2024).