Miss. Dep't of Transp. V. Rutland
| Docket Number: | 2005-CC-02062-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CC-02062-COA ; 2005-CT-02062-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-06-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Termination of employee - Political motivation - Substantial evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-28-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: DECISION OF MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYEE APPEALS BOARD AFFIRMED. Case Number: 251-04-1297 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION |
JOHN L. MAXEY II,
PAUL H. KIMBLE |
||
| Appellee: | SHIRLEY RUTLAND | DENNIS L. HORN, DAROLD L. RUTLAND |
|
|
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: | Termination of employee - Political motivation - Substantial evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Department of Transportation terminated Shirley Rutland. She appealed to the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board claiming that her termination was politically motivated. The hearing officer found that Rutland had failed to meet her burden of proof and affirmed her termination. The full Board reversed the hearing officer’s decision and ordered Rutland reinstated. The circuit court affirmed, and MDOT appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In the summer of 2003, a dispute arose between Central District Transportation Commissioner Dick Hall and MDOT Executive Director Butch Brown over the protocol concerning MDOT press releases. Hall had recently been appointed Chairman of the Transportation Commission and had instructed his assistants, Brad White and Shirley Rutland, to create letterhead designating him as “Chairman,” to be used in MDOT press releases bearing his name. Brown took issue with Hall’s use of the “Chairman” title, and created an External Affairs Division to handle all press releases emanating from MDOT. Brown also established a protocol for when the “Chairman” title would be used. Hall instructed his assistants not to follow Brown’s protocol and to include the “Chairman” designation on all of his press releases. After several battles over the title, Hall ordered White and Rutland to draft the press releases for his office and to send them out without going through External Affairs. The personnel in External Affairs alerted Brown to White’s and Rutland’s practice, and Brown called Rutland in for a meeting on the subject and became enraged when Rutland said she worked for Hall. Hall then met with Brown, and Brown told Hall that Rutland was causing a disruption in External Affairs. Hall told Brown that Rutland was following his directions and that he would handle his own staff. When the turmoil over the press releases continued, Southern District Commissioner Wayne Brown agreed that Rutland was causing a disruption and should be terminated. Director Brown then began the process of terminating Rutland. However, before Rutland could be terminated, Hall made a motion before the Commission to discharge Director Brown. Commissioners Hall and Stewart voted two-to-one over Commissioner Brown to terminate Director Brown. Following Butch Brown’s termination, elections were held for the commissioners’ seats. Hall and Wayne Brown retained their seats on the Commission, but newcomer Bill Minor was elected to replace Zack Stewart for the Northern District. Once Minor joined the Commission, he and Wayne Brown voted two-to-one over Hall to re-hire Butch Brown. They warned Butch Brown against any retaliatory firings. Director Brown terminated Rutland anyway. MDOT argues that the opinion and order of the hearing officer should be granted deference over the final decision of the full Board. However, deference is to be given to the decision of the EAB, sitting en banc. The fact that Rutland was a probationary employee during the first twelve months of employment and did not have the protections afforded to state service employees, i.e., termination for good cause only after notice and a hearing, is undisputed. The statutes and administrative regulations applicable to this case placed the burden upon Rutland to prove, by substantial evidence, that she was terminated for political reasons. Further, Rutland had the burden to show that the reason given by MDOT for her termination, that she caused a disruption within External Affairs, was merely a pretext to the true motive behind MDOT’s actions. The decision of the EAB, sitting en banc, finding Rutland’s termination to be politically motivated, is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Of note was the testimony of Hall’s other assistant who was not terminated. He testified that he handled ninety-five percent of the press releases sent out by Hall and dealt with External Affairs far more often than Rutland. However, because White has strong political connections in Simpson County, which lies within Commissioner Brown’s electoral district, he believes that Commissioner Brown would not allow Director Brown to terminate him. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
