CITY OF BATON ROUGE, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ANTHONY DOUGLAS AND THE PERSONNEL BOARD OF THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for
the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court
Nos. 466, 636, 576, 529, Sec. 26 The Honorable Donald R.
Johnson, Judge Presiding
Anthony W. Douglas Baton Rouge, Louisiana Appellant, In
Proper Person Plaintiff-Anthony W. Douglas.
Anne Batson Parish Attorney and Marston Fowler Assistant
Parish Attorney Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Appellee
Defendant - City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge
Department of Public Works.
BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND CALLOWAY,  JJ.
the fifth appeal in this employment dispute between the
plaintiff-appellant, Anthony W. Douglas, and the
defendant-appellee, the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East
Baton Rouge ("City/Parish"). The complete history
is set forth in the following opinions:
City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas (Douglas I),
2000-1736 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/28/01), 800 So.2d 448
(unpublished), writ denied, 2001-2806 (La. 11/9/01),
801 So.2d 1066, overruled by City of Baton Rouge v.
Douglas (Douglas II), 2004-1448 (La.App. 1 Cir.
12/29/05), 923 So.2d 166 (en banc), writ denied,
2006-0675 (La. 6/2/06), 929 So.2d 1254, enforcement
denied, 2006-0675 (La. 11/4/11), 75 So.3d 912, writs
denied, 2011-0328 (La. 4/1/11), 60 So.3d 1255, 2006-0675
(La. 12/16/11), 76 So.3d 1189;
City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas (Douglas III),
2007-1153 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/8/08), 984 So.2d 746, 747,
writ denied, 2008-0939 (La. 6/20/08), 983 So.2d
City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas (Douglas IV),
2011-2061 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/8/12), 2012 WL 2061419
(unpublished), writ denied, 2012-1575 (La.
10/12/12), 98 So.3d 875.
To summarize, this litigation began with Mr. Douglas's
disputed termination of employment with the City/Parish in
1999. After two appeals, Mr. Douglas was reinstated to his
employment. In connection with Mr. Douglas's
reinstatement to employment, he underwent a routine physical
examination and drug/alcohol screening in January 2007.
Following the results of the drug screening, the City/Parish
again sought to terminate Mr. Douglas's employment, and
Mr. Douglas once again disputed the termination. The parties
and their attorneys engaged in a settlement conference with
the trial court, after which a settlement agreement was
entered on the record in open court. It was made clear that
the settlement agreement was intended to end all litigation
between the parties. After the City/Parish made the necessary
arrangements to have the settlement approved by the Baton
Rouge Metro Council and to obtain the settlement funds, Mr.
Douglas changed his mind and attempted to refuse to accept
the terms of the settlement. In Douglas III, this
court determined that the parties had entered into a valid
compromise agreement and affirmed the April 30, 2007 judgment
of the trial court that granted the City/Parish's motion
to enforce the settlement agreement, and ordered Mr. Douglas
to execute all of the documents and take all actions
necessary to consummate the settlement agreement. The record
reflects that Mr. Douglas executed the documents and
acknowledged money payments under the terms of the settlement
After the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs in Douglas
III, Mr. Douglas filed a petition in the trial court
seeking to recognize the absolute nullity of the April 30,
2007 judgment of the trial court and the settlement agreement
that Mr. Douglas executed pursuant to the April 30, 2007
judgment. Mr. Douglas set forth numerous bases for
recognizing the nullity of the April 30, 2007 judgment, this
court's decision in Douglas III, as well as the
settlement agreement that he executed pursuant to the April
30, 2007 judgment, with the central argument being that the
prior judgment ordering him reinstated to employment could
not be set aside.
Douglas IV, 2011-2061, 2012 WL 2061419, at *1.
Douglas IV, this court concluded that Mr. Douglas
was attempting to relitigate the validity of the compromise
agreement and the April 30, 2007 judgment ordering him to
consummate the settlement agreement. This court noted that
these arguments had been considered and rejected in
Douglas III and then affirmed the trial court's
judgment. Douglas IV, 2011-2061, 2012 WL 2061419, at
to the City/Parish, after the Louisiana Supreme Court denied
writs in Douglas IV, Mr. Douglas filed pleadings in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana in February 2013, asserting age and employment
discrimination, as well as violations of the Fourteenth
Amendment's guarantee of equal protection and due process
of law. The City/Parish successfully filed a Rule 12(b)
motion, the federal district court dismissed all matters.
January 2015, Mr. Douglas filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court seeking to
be immediately reinstated to his former employment with the
City/Parish Department of Public Works and awarded full back
pay and monetary damages. The City/Parish filed peremptory
exceptions pleading res judicata and no cause of
action on March 9, 2015, which the trial court set for
hearing on June 8, 2015; ...