Bynum v. Dep't of Education
| Docket Number: | 2003-SA-01690-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-01690-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 09-29-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-07-2004 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Employee termination - Substantial evidence - Past conduct Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J. Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-25-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE EMPLOYEE APPEALS BOARD AND REINSTATED THE TERMINATION OF BYNUM. Case Number: 01-120 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Brenda Bynum |
ASHLEY E. CANNADY
KATHY K. SMITH
JOHN G. CORLEW |
||
| Appellee: | Mississippi Department of Education | TARA P. ELLIS ARMIN J. MOELLER, JR. |
|
|
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: | Employee termination - Substantial evidence - Past conduct |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Department of Education terminated Brenda Bynum from her position as an educational specialist senior. Bynum appealed, and the Employee Appeals Board reinstated her. The circuit court reversed the decision of the EAB. Bynum appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Bynum argues that she presented substantial evidence that she was terminated without good cause. Bynum was charged with abuse of state time such as unauthorized time away from work area or failure to notify supervisor promptly upon completion of assigned work; insubordination, including, but not limited to, resisting management directives through actions and/or verbal exchange, and/or failure or refusal to follow supervisor's instructions, perform assigned work, or otherwise comply with applicable established written policy; unauthorized use or misuse of state property or records; falsification of records, such as, but not limited to, vouchers, reports, time records, leave records, employment applications, or other official state documents; willful or negligent defacement of or damage to the records or property of the State, another employee or business invitee or a state agency or office; acts of conduct occurring on or off the job which are plainly related to job performance and are of such nature that to continue the employee in the assigned position could constitute negligence in regard to the agency's duties to the public or to other state employees; and willful violations of State Personnel Board policies, rules, and regulations. Substantial evidence supported the hearing officer's findings on all but two of the offenses listed in the termination letter. Substantial evidence did not support the conclusion that Bynum proved she did not contravene MDE policy by drafting specifications tracking the promotional description of software. The other offense occurred when Bynum took personal leave to attend a 1995 American Vocational Association conference. At the conference, a vocational staff person witnessed Bynum in a CLW booth wearing a CLW name tag. The staff person reported that Bynum said she worked for CLW. The hearing officer considered Bynum's admitted conduct to be an infraction, but found MDE barred from terminating Bynum for the infraction because MDE failed to take action against Bynum within a reasonable time of its notice of Bynum's misconduct. The finding that Bynum’s conduct was a conflict of interest was supported by substantial evidence. No statute or rule restricts MDE from reclassifying an employee's past conduct as terminable in light of new evidence and then terminating the employee. The hearing officer acted outside the power afforded to the EAB by finding MDE so restricted. To the extent that Hemba v. Miss. Dep't of Corr., 848 So. 2d 909 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) conflicts with this decision, it is hereby overruled. Since two of the hearing officer's conclusions, as affirmed by the EAB, were not supported by substantial evidence, the circuit court decision is affirmed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
