Miss. Dep't of Corrections v. Pennington
| Docket Number: | 2009-CC-01595-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-12-2011 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Employee dismissal - Authority to reduce punishment - Section 25-9-131(1) - State Personnel Board Rule 10.44.22(B) - Burden of proof Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-28-2009 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: William F. Coleman Disposition: Affirmed the Employee Appeals Board Decision to Reinstate MDOC Employee Case Number: 251-09-44-CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Department of Corrections |
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JANE L. MAPP, DAVID K. SCOTT |
||
| Appellee: | Paul R. Pennington, Jr. | JOHN W. WHITTEN JR., LEE TURNER |
|
|
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 dismissal - Authority to reduce punishment - Section 25-9-131(1) - State Personnel Board Rule 10.44.22(B) - Burden of proof |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Department of Corrections dismissed its employee, Paul Pennington, Jr., claiming he had used inmates to construct a deer stand on the grounds of the Mississippi State Penitentiary (Parchman) and then lied about it to investigators. Pennington appealed to the Employee Appeals Board, which reinstated him, finding he had met his burden to show the evidence did not support the MDOC’s allegations. The circuit court affirmed the EAB’s decision. The MDOC appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The MDOC argues the EAB had no authority to reduce Pennington’s punishment because Pennington’s termination was permitted by agency rules and regulations, which allow for dismissal of an employee who commits a Group III offense. Section 25-9-131(1) gives the EAB authority to conduct a de novo review of an agency’s adverse employment decision. The EAB may modify the decision but cannot increase the severity of the punishment. The EAB must also comply with State Personnel Board Rule 10.44.22(B) (Rev. 1999)—formerly EAB Rule 20(b)—that restricts the EAB’s authority to modify an agency’s decision if the personnel action taken by the responding agency is allowed under said policies, rules and regulations. A dismissed employee must furnish evidence that the reasons stated in the notice of dismissal or action adversely affecting his compensation or employment status are not true or are not sufficient grounds for the action taken. Here, if the EAB found Pennington had proved the acts alleged by the MDOC did not occur, the EAB had statutory authority to reinstate Pennington, regardless of the MDOC’s strict adherence to its agency rules. The hearing officer held that the MDOC’s stated reasons for Pennington’s Group III offences were not supported by substantial evidence. He specifically found Pennington met his burden of proof by showing he neither used inmates to build the deer stand nor lied to investigators. In reaching this decision, the officer found both Pennington’s and his supervisor’s testimony credible. The EAB’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
