Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; March 29, 1989; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
William G. Farrell appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against Harry J. Boyer, President of Delgado College, and the Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities, seeking $3,010,000 in damages. Farrell claims that Boyer engaged in an affair with his wife, Colleen Farrell, during her employment, which he alleges destroyed their marriage due to Boyer's intentional and negligent acts while acting in his official capacity. He contends that Boyer violated ethical standards and failed in his duty of care, while also accusing Delgado and the Board of Trustees of negligence for their failure to discipline Boyer despite knowledge of his inappropriate conduct.
The defendants filed exceptions of no cause of action, asserting that Louisiana law does not recognize alienation of affections and that Farrell's claims do not demonstrate actionable negligence. On appeal, Farrell identifies six errors by the trial court, including the failure to recognize multiple causes of action, violations of the Louisiana Code of Government Ethics (La. R.S. 42:1115 and 42:1116), and the Board's alleged breach of duty regarding state funds.
Farrell argues that Boyer violated ethical standards by coercing Colleen into an affair, which he claims constitutes a violation of La. R.S. 42:1116. However, the court found this argument unpersuasive, noting that Colleen's actions do not fit the statutory prohibition on gifts. Farrell also notes that violations of the ethics code could lead to civil action under La. R.S. 42:1155, which allows public entities to sue public servants for violations for economic advantage gained. The law limits recovery to the economic advantage received, and individuals are encouraged to report violations to the appropriate ethics body for action.
Private citizens and individuals like Farrell do not fall under the applicable statutory scheme for lawsuits. Farrell claims that the Board of Trustees was aware of Boyer's inappropriate behavior with employees and permitted him to misuse college funds, thereby condoning employment discrimination as outlined in La. R.S. 23:1006. However, Farrell does not meet the criteria to bring such a suit since discrimination is not referenced in his petition, and La. C.C.P. Art. 686 does not establish a community right to file a discrimination-based action.
Additionally, Farrell asserts that the Board had a duty to oversee fund expenditures due to his relationship as the husband of a state employee, but fails to specify any damages or actionable misuse of funds, rendering this argument unsubstantiated.
He further contends that his claims are not limited to alienation of his wife's affections but also include loss of consortium. However, Louisiana law does not recognize claims for alienation of affections, and established jurisprudence indicates that a party to a contract (such as a marriage) cannot sue a non-party for inducing a breach of that contract. Although the Louisiana Supreme Court has revisited some aspects of tortious interference, the precedent set in Moulin v. Monteleone, which disallows damages for alienation of affections, remains relevant.
Farrell attempts to argue that loss of consortium, introduced in a 1982 amendment to La. C.C. Art. 2315, allows for a cause of action; however, the court rejects this notion. Since Farrell cannot amend his petition to establish a valid cause of action, the trial court's decision to uphold the defendants' exceptions of no cause of action is affirmed.
