NEW ORLEANS – Two former employees of the Orleans Parish Communication District claim the agency allowed “hostile” work conditions, including discrimination, and wrongly terminated them.
Plaintiffs Patrina Duplessis and Aliska Landry, both New Orleans residents, filed their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana June 2. The OPCD is the named defendant.
Formed in 1982, the OPCD is the Public Safety Answering Point, or PSAP, for all emergency communications via 911 and non-emergency city services via 311 within Orleans Parish.
According to its website, the agency employs more than 140 individuals and provides emergency medical dispatch, emergency fire dispatch, and emergency police dispatch for both local residents and the millions of annual visitors to New Orleans.
“Defendant’s conduct was intentional, malicious, willful, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ federally protected rights,” according to the 65-page complaint. “It created and perpetuated a racially discriminatory work environment that impaired Plaintiffs’ rights to make and enforce employment contracts on equal footing with white employees.”
Both plaintiffs contend they were targeted because of their race and age. Both women are Black and in their 40s.
Duplessis noted she “consistently fulfilled critical HR and payroll responsibilities and maintained a satisfactory performance record.”
“Despite her professionalism, she was subjected to a pattern of racially charged hostility, targeted exclusion, and retaliatory conduct that created an intolerable and discriminatory work environment,” the complaint states.
According to the filing, Karl Fasold started asserting “inappropriate influence” over hiring decisions in August 2023 as the OPCD’s interim executive director at the time. According to the OPCD website, he is now the executive director.
Duplessis contends Fasold, who is White, selected candidates based on personal preference rather than merit.
“When Ms. Duplessis objected and advocated for fair, objective hiring practices, Mr. Fasold dismissed her concerns by stating, ‘I can do whatever I want,’” the complaint states.
Duplessis said she reported the comment to her supervisor, Landry, but no corrective action was taken.
After filing a protected complaint, Duplessis claims she was the target of “increasingly hostile behavior” by Fasold.
“In a meeting on August 29, 2023, Mr. Fasold openly admitted he felt ‘animosity’ toward Ms. Duplessis, falsely accused her of being part of an ‘in-crowd,’ and criticized her perceived alliances,” the complaint states. “These personal remarks, delivered in a professional setting, reflected both racial and gender-based stereotypes and fostered a divisive and hostile work culture.”
The mistreatment, she contends, continued after formally filing a grievance over Fasold’s alleged misconduct – and culminated in the selection of Heather Hilliard, a White female, as a candidate for a high-ranking position.
“Before any interviews had taken place, Mr. Fasold openly declared that Ms. Hilliard was ‘the better candidate,’ demonstrating a predetermined outcome,” the complaint states.
“He had also given Ms. Hilliard a tour of the agency, showed her the office she would occupy, and prematurely notified staff of her expected arrival. Moreover, he instructed employees not to document interview responses, further eroding transparency and fairness in the workplace.”
According to the filing, Hilliard was appointed as deputy director. After which, Duplessis alleges she was subjected to “ongoing retaliatory actions.” She alleges she was stripped of core HR responsibilities, removed from the FMLA case management process, excluded from the Policy Writing Team, and required to return agency credit cards.
OPCD failed to investigate the situation, Duplessis contends. Instead, she alleges she was terminated, along with Landry, under the pretext of budget constraints.
“Notably, no employees under the age of 40 were terminated, and the agency subsequently re-filled the payroll role under a different title without offering the position to Ms. Duplessis, despite her qualifications and internal experience,” the complaint states.
Landry made similar allegations in the complaint. Like Duplessis, she noted she performed her job with “professionalism and competence.” Her duties include managing the agency’s human resources operations, ensuring regulatory compliance, and supporting the overall workforce of OPCD.
She, too, alleges she was subjected to a racially hostile work environment and pointed to Fasold’s leadership.
“Beginning in or around mid-2023, Ms. Landry witnessed and experienced a pattern of discriminatory practices and exclusionary behavior by Mr. Fasold that created a workplace environment permeated with hostility, marginalization, and racial animus,” the complaint states.
“Ms. Landry was deliberately excluded from the hiring process for a newly created Deputy Director position, despite her role as HR Manager and her responsibility over all staffing matters.”
Fasold, Landry alleges, directed her to draft the job description, but excluded her and all other HR staff from participating further, including the interview process.
Landry alleges Fasold unilaterally hired Hilliard, “a personal friend with a prior legal settlement involving another public agency.”
“His actions reflected favoritism, racial bias, and a disregard for established equal employment practices, reinforcing a sense of racial exclusion and unfairness in hiring,” the complaint states.
Landry contends the hostile work environment interfered with her ability to perform her job, caused her emotional distress, and culminated in her “unlawful” termination.
“OPCD’s failure to prevent or correct the ongoing hostility, its tolerance of discriminatory practices by its executive leadership, and the adverse treatment of Ms. Landry because of her race and in retaliation for participating in protected activity violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” the complaint states.
The two plaintiffs are seeking post-judgment interest; pre-judgment interest; an award representing the agency’s share of FICA, FUTA, state unemployment insurance and any other required employment taxes; costs, including attorneys’ fees; and compensatory and punitive damages for “physical injury, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish.”
New Orleans-based Minias Law Firm is representing the plaintiffs.
