Miss. Forestry Comm'n v. Oglesby


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-SA-01602-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-SA-01602-COA ; 2010-CT-01602-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-19-2012
Opinion Author: Barnes, J.
Holding: Reversed and rendered

Additional Case Information: Topic: Substantial evidence - Insubordination - Burden of proof - Section 25-9-127(1) - State employee handbook
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Carlton, J.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-03-2010
Appealed from: Franklin County Circuit Court
Judge: Forrest Johnson
Disposition: REVERSED THE MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYEE APPEALS BOARD’S DECISION TO UPHOLD OGLESBY’S TERMINATION
Case Number: 10-CV-0016

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Mississippi Forestry Commission




RICHARD A. COMPERE



 

Appellee: Stephen Oglesby JAMES D. BELL SARAH ANN ELLIS  

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: Substantial evidence - Insubordination - Burden of proof - Section 25-9-127(1) - State employee handbook

Summary of the Facts: The Mississippi Forestry Commission terminated Stephen Oglesby, a licensed professional forester in Franklin County, for insubordination. Oglesby appealed to the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board, where the hearing officer upheld his termination. He appealed to the full EAB, which also affirmed his termination. Oglesby appealed to circuit court, which reversed the EAB’s decision, stating Oglesby’s termination was not supported by substantial evidence. The MFC appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Substantial evidence The MFC argues that the EAB’s ruling, which affirmed the agency’s termination of Oglesby for insubordination, was supported by substantial evidence in the record. The circuit court stated that the “essential question” for the court was whether “there was substantial evidence that Oglesby was actually insubordinate on his job.” However, as the MFC notes, the proper question for the reviewing court is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the EAB’s finding that Oglesby was insubordinate. Substantial evidence means more than a scintilla or a suspicion. The definition of “insubordination” the MFC used in its October 2008 notice of reprimands letter, which is found in the State Personnel Board Policy and Procedures Manual, “include[s], but [is] 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.” The full EAB upheld the hearing officer’s decision, which found “Oglesby did refuse to follow management directives on three separate occasions cited in the ‘Notice of Reprimands’” letter of October 31, 2008. These occasions were the basis of the three Group Two offenses. Each of these instances was supported by substantial evidence from the record. In response to the charges against him, Oglesby indicated that he alone knew what was best for the timber of Franklin County. However, this attitude is unmistakably insubordinate because Oglesby indicated that he knew better than his superiors, and was in direct opposition to their instructions. Even though he had been working as a forester in this area for over twenty-five years, Oglesby’s ultimate job was to prepare the plan in accordance with the instructions of his superiors, whether he agreed with those instructions or not. The circuit court erred in substituting its opinion of the evidence for that of the EAB, which showed Oglesby continued to voice his disagreement and failed to prepare a plan in accord with the instructions of his supervisors. This evidence could certainly be considered insubordination by the fact-finder. Thus, the EAB did not err in upholding Oglesby’s termination for insubordination. Issue 2: Burden of proof Oglesby argues that the EAB applied the incorrect burden of proof – that Oglesby must prove the agency’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence” - because the standard the EAB used violates section 25-9-127(1). This statute provides that on appeal, an employee who receives a notice of dismissal is “required to furnish evidence that the reasons stated in the notice of dismissal . . . are not true or are not sufficient grounds for the action taken.” Oglesby claims that he met his burden of proof because the evidence demonstrated that the reasons listed in the notice of dismissal letter of October 2008 were not true. The MFC points out that Oglesby failed to note while an employee must prove the reasons for the dismissal are not true, the employee must also prove that the action taken against the employee is arbitrary, capricious, against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and merits the relief requested under EAB Administrative Rule 21(B). Thus, there was no error in the burden of proof used in the EAB hearing officer’s order. Issue 3: State employee handbook Oglesby argues that the circuit court should have found the MFC violated the Mississippi State Employee Handbook. Oglesby complains that if any disciplinary action was to be taken against him, it should have been applied in steps, in accordance with the rules in the Handbook for Group Two offenses, and not simultaneously. No authority has been cited by Ogleby that disciplinary action must be taken in steps. Therefore, there is no merit to his argument. Oglesby also claims that his reprimands violated the Handbook and therefore were “unethical.” There is no merit to this argument. The MFC’s letter merely puts Oglesby on notice of the possible consequences and disciplinary actions that may be taken for the offenses.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court