McNeel v. Miss. Dep't of Human Services
| Docket Number: | 2010-CC-01399-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CC-01399-COA ; 2010-CT-01399-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-24-2012 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Employment termination - Compound interest - Section 75-17-7 - Date of interest - Independent accounting firm Judge(s) Concurring: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Fair, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-08-2010 Appealed from: Winston County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: AFFIRMED MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYEE APPEALS BOARD’S ORDER Case Number: 2009-219-CV-L |
|
| Note: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and our original opinion is withdrawn with this opinion substituted in lieu thereof. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Carolyn K. McNeel |
DAVID E. BANE JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mississippi Department of Human Services | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: KATHERINE JANE CALDWELL | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Employment termination - Compound interest - Section 75-17-7 - Date of interest - Independent accounting firm |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. In 1999, Carolyn McNeel was terminated from her employment as a social worker with the Winston County Department of Human Services. McNeel appealed her termination to the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board. The hearing officer ordered that McNeel be reinstated to her position with back pay and benefits that had accrued since the date of termination. The EAB affirmed the hearing officer’s decision. The Mississippi Department of Human Services appealed to circuit court which affirmed. MDHS appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which also affirmed the EAB’s decision. Following her reinstatement and the receipt of her back pay, McNeel filed an appeal with the EAB raising several issues regarding her back pay and reinstatement. The hearing officer found that MDHS had failed to follow the previous order. The hearing officer granted McNeel some relief, but denied some of her requests. The EAB affirmed the hearing officer’s decision. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. Both McNeel and MDHS appealed that decision. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The Supreme Court remanded for MDHS to report properly McNeel’s back pay to the Social Security Administration for the determination of post-judgment interest and clarification of what pay increase and/or advancement to which McNeel might have been entitled. The Court also found the EAB erred in determining it could not award post-judgment interest, and remanded this issue to the EAB for a determination of how much post-judgment statutory interest McNeel was due upon the award of back pay. Upon remand, the hearing officer entered an order ordering MDHS to complete the following: place McNeel in the position she would have been eligible for but for her wrongful termination; award McNeel all promotions and salary increases to which she would have been entitled; pay McNeel all medical expenses incurred during her wrongful termination; report and pay to the SSA McNeel’s back pay pursuant to Internal Revenue Service regulations; and pay 8% post-judgment interest from the overall lump sum of McNeel’s back pay. McNeel appealed to circuit court which affirmed. McNeel appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | McNeel argues that she should have been awarded compound interest. The general rule is that when interest is allowable, it is to be computed on a simple rather than compound basis in the absence of express authorization otherwise. Section 75-17-7 allows the trial court to set the rate and, in effect, the method of its calculation. Since the EAB did not specify that the 8% interest be computed on a compound basis, the EAB meant for the interest to be computed on a simple basis. McNeel also argues that the EAB should have specified the date when interest should begin to accrue. Section 75-17-7 states that the percentage rate should be “set by the judge hearing the complaint from a date determined by such judge to be fair but in no event prior to the filing of the complaint.” McNeel had been awarded her back pay on July 16, 2004. The back pay totaled $147,294.10, but it was reduced to $92,251.39 after deducting taxes, social security, retirement, and medicare. This amount did not include any interest that accrued during the period of her termination and post-judgment. The Supreme Court’s 2009 opinion and the EAB’s December 1, 2009 order required McNeel to be paid 8% post-judgment simple interest per annum on the net back-pay award of $92,251.39 from the date the judgment was awarded, April 23, 2001, to the date on which the judgment was satisfied, July 16, 2004. Thus, this issue is without merit. McNeel argues that the EAB should appoint an independent accounting firm or the State Auditor’s Office to calculate all monies owed to her. However, the Supreme Court addressed this issue, finding that McNeel was not entitled to this request. McNeel argues that she was entitled to a higher raise and additional benefits due to her recent promotion. The trial court correctly found that McNeel failed to offer proof that she was entitled to a higher raise or additional benefits. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
