It all came down to what was in her hand – and no one could agree
A Louisiana court has upheld the reinstatement of a fired supervisor after her public employer failed to prove a workplace violence allegation.
The Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit of Louisiana on March 10, 2026, affirmed a Civil Service Commission decision reinstating Sadra Hamilton, a billing department supervisor at the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, after finding her employer failed to prove the core allegation behind her firing.
Hamilton had worked at the Board since 2011 without a single disciplinary mark. That changed after an October 12, 2023, workplace confrontation with Lanitra Neveaux, a subordinate probationary employee she supervised.
The trouble started the day before. On October 11, Hamilton and two other supervisors met with Neveaux to address ongoing performance problems – attendance issues, dress code violations, cell phone policy breaches, and, according to testimony, sleeping at her desk with a blanket over her head. Later that day, Hamilton began receiving threatening text messages from an unknown number that could not be traced. She reported the messages and told her employer she feared for her safety. She believed the texts came from Neveaux.
The next day, Neveaux arrived late. Hamilton moved to a different desk to keep her distance. It did not help. Neveaux aggressively approached Hamilton, cursing and yelling, and had to be physically restrained by co-workers roughly twenty to twenty-five feet away.
What happened next became the crux of the case. The Board alleged Hamilton picked up a pair of scissors and made stabbing motions toward Neveaux. Hamilton denied it, saying she had an office phone in one hand and her cell phone in the other, trying to call security. The Board terminated her effective March 8, 2024, citing its zero-tolerance Workplace Violence Prevention Policy.
Hamilton appealed, and the case went to a disciplinary hearing where witness accounts split down the middle. Two of the Board's witnesses said Hamilton held scissors. One of Hamilton's witnesses said it was a silver tip pen. Another said Hamilton was holding two phones and never acted violently. The Commission also flagged a credibility problem with one of the Board's witnesses, who had previously had a romantic relationship with Hamilton's then-husband.
The hearing examiner concluded the Board proved only that Hamilton made a threatening gesture with a pen – not scissors. The examiner also pointed out something HR professionals should take note of: the Board's own progressive discipline policy listed a three-day suspension as an alternative to termination for threatening behavior. For an employee with a spotless record spanning more than a decade, the examiner found termination was too severe.
The Commission went a step further. It found the Board simply did not prove Hamilton ever held scissors and therefore could not establish she had used or possessed a weapon under any applicable policy. The Commission also weighed the full picture – the threatening texts Hamilton received, Neveaux's aggressive approach toward her, and what the Commission described as Hamilton's "instinctive reaction based on fear for her physical safety." Hamilton was ordered reinstated with all backpay and emoluments.
One Commission member partially dissented, arguing Hamilton should have tried to de-escalate the situation and would have imposed a three-day suspension instead.
The Board appealed. The Fourth Circuit was not persuaded. The court found the testimony on the scissors question was "not definitive," noted the credibility concerns around one of the Board's witnesses, and concluded the Commission made no clear error. With the employer unable to prove its central claim, the court said no legal cause existed for punishment. Hamilton's reinstatement stood.
For HR teams, the case is a pointed reminder that a zero-tolerance policy is only as strong as the evidence behind its enforcement. Witness credibility matters. So does an employee's track record. And when an employer's own progressive discipline framework includes a lesser penalty as an option, moving straight to termination – especially against a long-tenured employee with a clean file who was on the receiving end of workplace aggression – is a decision that may not survive scrutiny.
