IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-CC-00050-COA RONALD WEEKS APPELLANT

v. CITY OF BILOX I , MISSISSIPPI AND ITS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPELLEES

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2015 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAW RENCE PAUL BOURGEOIS JR. COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ANDREW AUSTIN CLARK RUSSELL S. GILL ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: GERALD HENRY BLESSEY TERE R. STEEL DANIELLE BREW ER JONES NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE BILOXI CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED: 05/23/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., CARLTON AND GREENLEE, JJ. GRIFFIS, P.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Ronald W eeks appeals his term ination as a police of f icer f or the City of Biloxi. The Biloxi Civil Service C om m ission f ound that the City acted i n good f aith when it term inated
W e eks f or cause. W eeks appealed the d ecision to t he Harrison County Circuit Court, which af f irm ed the Com m ission’s j udgm ent. It is f rom this j udgm ent t hat W eeks now appeals. W e f ind no error and af

f irm

. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¶2. W e eks w as em ploy e d as a police of

f icer with the C i ty of Biloxi f rom April 29, 1991, until he was term i nated on October 31, 2007. ¶3. W e eks’s te r mi n a t i on stem m ed f rom the events that occurred shortly a f ter his shif

t b e g a n on June 6, 2007. Im m e diately af t er the shif

t brief ing, W eeks learned t hat his close f riend had attem

pted suicide and was at Biloxi Regional M edical Center. Lieutenant Andrew Balius and Sergeant Michael Brum ley , the shif t supervisors, gave W eeks perm ission to leave work and go check on his f r iend’s condition. W hi l e r e s p o n d ing to an unrelated call at the hospital, Lt. Balius observed W eeks cry ing. ¶4. W h ile W eeks was at the hospital, the dispatch center received several calls f or service.
W e eks was needed in h i s p a trol area. Af ter W eeks rem a i ned at the hospital f or approxim a tely two hours, Sgt. Brum ley radioed and asked him to return to work. W eeks did
not im m ediately return. Instead, he rem ained at the hospital, where h e m et with m edical staf f and discussed possible com m i tm e nt to a psy chiatric institution. Sgt. Brum ley , the eveningshif t patrol sergeant, went t o the hospital and instructed W eeks to return to the police station im m ediately

. ¶5. Once he r eturned to the s tation, Sgt. Brum l ey m et with W eeks to discuss the am ount of tim e that W eeks h ad s pent at the hospital. Sgt. Brum ley was alarm ed by W eeks’s behavior during the m eeting. He draf ted a narrative of the encounter. According to t h e n a rrative,
W e eks had been visibly upset and em otional. Sgt. Brum ley characterized W eeks’s behavior as an “em otional tirade,” which he described as a range of m ood swings that occurred in a short period of tim e. At o ne point during the m eeting, W eeks becam e angry and blam ed the

2doctors f

or his f riend’s bipolar diagnosis. W eeks also b lam ed a police i nvestigator f or his f riend’s suicide attem

pt. 1 ¶6. Sgt. Brum ley f

urther n o t e d that W e e ks’s dem eanor changed f r om of f ensive to an aggressive body posture. He testif ied t hat W ee k s ’ s t o n e had been a ngry and escalated at tim es. H e al s o t e stif

i ed t hat W e eks c ried and used prof anity w hen he discussed his anger toward a f

ellow of f icer. Sgt. Brum ley noted W eeks’s explanation t hat he had “white knight
sy ndrom e” and alway s wanted to help people. ¶7. According to Sgt. Brum ley , W eeks had been too em otionally distraught to return to work. He did not believe that W eeks could put his f riend’s suicide a ttem

p t aside and f

ocus

on the job as he patrolled the streets. Sgt. Brum ley t estif ied that he had never seen an of f icer behave so em otionally

. T he b ehavior caused Sgt. Brum l ey to question W e eks’s f itness f or duty

. Sgt. Brum ley was especially concerned t hat W eeks was not a relative, y e t he discussed the patient’s m edical inf orm ation. According to Sgt. B rum ley , police of f icers are not
perm itted to discuss conf idential inf

orm ation regarding p a tients. Sgt. Brum ley was also alarm e d that W e eks b lam ed the police departm ent ’ s i nvestigation f or his f riend’s suicide
attem pt. Sgt. B rum ley testif

i ed that he f

elt that W eeks’s relationship with his f riend coupled with his m ental state c ould cause a liability issue f or the C ity

. As a result of S gt. Brum ley ’s
concerns, W eeks was sent hom e f or the r e m ainder of the day and instructed not to return to the hospital in h i s u nif

o r m . Sgt. B rum ley ’s docum entation was f orwarded up the chain of

1 N o t ab ly , Week s’s f

rien d w as th e su b

j ect o f a n o n g o in g crim in al in v estig atio n w h ere sh e h ad b een accu sed o f stab b in g h er h u sb a n d , a C ity o f B i l o x i f i r e f i g h ter, d u rin g an arg u m en t. 3com m and.

¶8. Assistant Chief Rodney M cGilvary and the director of the Biloxi Police Departm ent, Bruce Dunagan, r e ceived the docum entation. Asst. Chief McGilvary and Director Dunagan conducted a r eview of We e k s ’s personnel f ile. They d eterm ined that W eeks’s recent behavior, coupled w ith num erous com p laints m ade against him , raised “ red f lags.” The personnel f

ile contained at least f

i v e c o m plaints m ade against W eeks between Novem ber 1996 and April 2007. In each instance W eeks had been accused of exhibiting poor j udgm ent when dealing with wom en. F o r h i s behavior, W eeks had received disciplinary actions including verbal counseling, three no-contact orders against him , a f ive-day suspension, and dem otion f

rom sergeant to patrol. ¶9. Asst. Ch i e f M c G i l v ary testif ied that all of the com

plaints against W eeks had been

m ade by wom en. H e also t e s tif ied that a p rior f

itness-f or-duty evaluation i ndicated that
W e eks h a d m oved f

rom a low r isk to a m oderate risk f or possible em

ploy m ent problem s. The previous evaluation also concluded t hat without i ntervention We eks would likely advance to a high-risk classif ication. ¶10. Asst. Chief M cGilvary a n d D i rector Dunagan then f ound it necessary to request a psy c h ological evaluation to ascertain W eeks’s continued f itness f o r duty

. Director Dunagan consulted hum an resources f or assistance with the m atter. D i rector Dunagan t e stif ied that he m et with Biloxi May or A.J. Holloway and brief ed him about W e eks’s situation. May or Holloway ap p r o ved Director Dunagan’s request to send W eeks f or a f itness-f or-duty

exam ination.

4¶11. W e eks w as notif ied that h e would undergo a f itness-f or-duty exam on June 12, 2007.
Dr. Julie Teaters, clinical psy chologist, concluded that W eeks was unf i t f or duty as a police of f icer. The psy chological-f itness-f or-duty report provided:
Mr. W eeks appears to have a b ehavior pat t e r n that involves his actions with wom en at work as well as away f rom work. The rec e n t i n c i dent in April suggests that h e has not changed his behavior toward wom en that was note d in previous com

plaints. His actions in June also r aise c oncerns t hat he violated a hospital patient’s privacy regar d i n g the status of her health. Both of the incidents suggest the abuse of his position of power as a police of f icer.

. . . Mr. W eeks does appear to have a c ontinuing p roblem with his judgm ent. It is reasonable that this problem will continue to lead to his i nability t o perf orm his e ssential j ob f

unctions. Based on h is long history o f poor jud g me n t (particularly involving wom en) it i s f e lt th at Mr. W eeks is NOT FIT FOR DUTY. Due t o the lengthy history of repeated poor j u d g me n t it is f elt t hat f urther ef f o rts to correct his problem are likely to be inef

f ective. ¶12. In a l etter, dated June 1 9, 2 007, Director D u n a g a n inf orm ed W eeks that Dr. Teater f ound him unf

it f or duty

. Consequently , W eeks rem ained on paid a d m inistrative l eave f rom work. Director Dunagan requested that W eeks provide Dr. T eater with psy chological and/or
psy c h iatric records f

rom his prim ary treatm ent provider. In r esponse to this request, W eeks’s
p r i ma r y -care p h y sician, Dr. W .R. Fellows, subm itted a letter to hum an resources. Dr

. F e l l ows noted that W eeks’s m edical p roblem s had been treated with m edication and were under control. Dr. Fellows f urther opined that nothing in the h ealth of W eeks prevented h im f rom f ulf i lling his duties as a Biloxi police of f icer. ¶13. Af ter a review o f Dr. Fellows’s records, Dr. Teater m a de no changes to her previous

recom m endation. In a n addendum , Dr. T e a t e r opined that W eeks a ppeared to have a continuing problem with his j ud g me n t , w h i ch she predicted would lead to an inability to perf orm h i s essential job f

unctions. Due to the conf

lict of t he two opinions, May or Holloway

5requested a third opinion. W eeks was sent to Dr. Mark W ebb f o r a second f

itness-f or-duty

exam . On August 16, 2007, Dr. W ebb concluded that W eeks suf f ered f rom dy sthy

m ia 2 and dependent-personality traits. In his report, Dr. W ebb provided the f ollowing: [ W ]eeks could def

initely benef

it f rom psy chotherapy

on a long-term

basis to help with these traits. He has a lot of issues to work t h r o u g h

. W i th Mr. W e e k s ’ s d

y sthy m ia and dependent personality traits, he is not f it f or duty

. These illnesses in a person of signif icant power are a very lethal com bination which h as been b orne out in m ultiple incidences d

uring Mr. W eeks’s career as a police of

f icer. ¶14. Af ter he was declared unf

it f or duty b y both a psy chologist and a psy chiatrist, Director Dunagan recom m ended W eeks’s term ination. W e eks was inf orm e d that the f

inal decision
to term inate would be m ade by the ma y or. He was also inf orm ed that he would have an opportunity to go b ef

ore the m ay or and respond to the recom m endation f or term ination. Two day s bef ore the scheduled m eeting, W eeks r equested copies of t he psy chological reports of Dr. Teater and Dr. W ebb. ¶15. On Septem

ber 25, 2007, W eeks m et wit h M ay or H olloway and subm itted a written
response to Director Dunagan ’ s recom m endation f or term ination. At that tim e, W eeks requested additional tim e to obtain an independent psy chol o g ical evaluation. May or Holloway granted W eeks’ s r e q u e st and gave him until October 1 5, 2007, t o subm it an independent psy chological evaluation on his f itness f or duty

. On Octob e r 8 , 2 0 0 7 , May or Holloway inf

orm ed W eeks that he would b e perm itted to read and review Dr. Teater’s and
Dr. W ebb’s p sy chological evaluations. On O ct o b er 9, 2007, W eeks visited Director
D u n a g a n’s of

f ice, where he reviewed the reports and took notes. W eeks was not g i v e n

2 D r. Web b d ef

in ed d y sth y

m ia as a lo w g rad e, n o n d i sab lin g f o r m o f d ep ressio n . 6copies of the reports at that t im e . On October 11, 2007, W eeks subm itted a letter to May or

Holloway and inf

orm ed h i m that h e had dif f iculty f inding a doctor to reevaluate his f itness f or duty because he d id not h ave copies of the reports draf ted by D rs. Teat e r a n d W ebb. Once again, W e eks requested additional tim e to obtain an independent psy chological evaluation. W eeks d id n ot subm it any additional docum e ntation bef ore t he O ctober 15, 2007 deadline. ¶16. In a hand-delivered letter, d ated October 19, 2007, May or Holloway ref used W eeks’s request f or additional tim e to obtain another evaluation. May or H olloway noted that W eeks had been given am

ple tim e, since June 19, 2007, to obtain a diagnosis f rom a m ental health provider of his choice. W eeks was f urther inf orm ed that his em

ploy m ent with the City was
t e r m inated, ef

f ective October 31, 2007. W eeks was notif ied that his s u itability f o r

em ploy m ent h ad b een evaluated under section 5 .12(b) of the City ’ s rules a n d r egulations. Section 5.12(b) provided:
An indiv idual entering the classif ied s ervice m ay be required to receive a satisf actory health exam report bef o re t he candidates’s a

ppointm ent can be m ade. The [ a]ppointing [ a]uthority m a y require any m em ber to m e et t he sam e requirem ents w hen there are reasonable grounds t o question s a i d e m ploy ee regarding the c andidate’s m ental a nd phy sical s u itability f or continued em ploy m ent . . . . May o r Holloway noted that the decision had bee n r e a c h e d af t er both a psy chologist and a psy c h iatrist opined that W e eks was unf it f o r duty

. W eeks was f

urther advised that he had ten day s to request that the Com m ission review the City ’s decision. ¶17. W eeks tim ely appealed the City ’s decision to the Com m iss i o n . A n appeal hearing

was sc h e d u l e d f

or July 29, 2008. Prior to the h earing, W eeks obtained an independent

7psy c h ological e valuation f ro m D r . William Gasparrini, a clinical psy chologist. W eeks

s u b mitted two separate copies of Dr. Gasparrini’s report to the Com m ission. Th e f i r s t report, labeled “Gasparrini-2,” was subm itted prior to the deadline f or subm ission of exhibits on July 22, 2008. ¶18. At W eeks’s request, the hearing was continued to October 20, 2 008. The parties were given a new deadline in w hich to subm it additional exhibits f or review by the C om m ission.
In response to th e n ew d eadline, W eeks’s a ttorney rem oved the f irst report, labeled Gasparrini-2, f

rom h is exhibits and replaced i t with a second report, labeled “ Gasparrini-1.” The City then subm itted the retracted report as one of its own exhibits. ¶19. W e eks’s appeal hearing was continued o n f our separa t e o c casions. On March 26, 2009, the initial hearing convened but was postponed, y et again, af ter the parties agreed to stay the appeal while W eeks pursued a c laim f or m edical-disability retirem e nt benef its through the Public Em

p loy ees’ Retirem ent Sy stem of Mississippi (PERS). Approxim ately three y ears later, W e eks n otif ied the Com m ission that h is request f or PERS d isability benef

its h ad been denied. On August 9, 2012, W eeks r equested that his appeal h e a r i n g b e rescheduled. The appeal hearing was rescheduled. ¶20. Af ter a f our-day hearing, t he Com m ission issued i ts f indings of f

act and conclusions of l aw on Septem

b e r 12, 2013. The Com m ission f o und that the evid e n c e presented at the hearing was suf

f icient t o e s t a

b l ish reasonable g rounds to r ecom m e nd W eeks f or a f i tness-forduty exam . The Com m ission concluded that no credible evidence was presented to s how that the decision to send W eeks f or a f itness-f or-duty evaluation was ordered as a pretext or was

8politically m otivated. The Com m ission f urt h er f ound t hat the City had good cause to
term inate W eeks’s em

ploy m ent. ¶21. Aggrieved by the Com m i ssion’s decision, W eeks f iled a notice of appeal to the circuit
court. On Decem

ber 10, 2015, the circuit-court judge af f irm ed the C om m ission’s decision f avoring the City ’s term i nation of W e e ks. The circuit-cour t j u d g e f o und that the Com m i ssion’s decision was m ade i n g o o d f a i th f or cause. The circuit-court judge f urther f ound t hat the Com m ission’s f indings were supported b y substantial e vidence, and theref ore,

were not a rbitrary or capricious. Aggrieved by th e c i r c u i t court’s judgm ent, W e eks now appeals to this Court. S TANDARD OF REVIEW ¶22. T h is Court em

ploy s a lim i ted standard of review. In a n appeal f rom a civil servic e

com m ission’s decision, our standard of review is as f

ollows: [ T]he question b ef

ore the a ppellate court is whether or not the action of the Civil Service Com m i ssion was in good f aith f or cause. I ntertwined with this question is whether o r n ot there was substantia l evidence bef ore t he Civil Service Com m i ssion t o s u pport its o rder and whether [ the d ecision] is arbitrary , unreasonable, conf iscatory , and capricious.
Necaise v
. City of W

aveland , 170 So. 3d 616, 618 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (citations

om itted). ¶23. “W e are prohibited f r om substituting our judgm ent f or the City ’s.” Renfro v. City of
Moss Point , 1 56 So. 3d 913, 9 1 7 ( ¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014). Further, this Court is “prohib i t ed f

rom m aking c redibility determ inations of the evidence or testim ony that was presented to the

. . . [ C]om m ission.” Id. (citation om itted). As an appellate c ourt, we “[ are]

9not called u pon to d eterm ine issues of f act regarding whether a n em p loy ee a c t u ally

com m itted the alleged m isconduct that led to h i s . . . term ination.” Id. Rather, we are charged only w ith determ ining “whether the [ C]om m ission acted in good f aith based on the evidence bef

ore it.” Id. ANALYSIS
I. Fitness-for-Duty Exam ¶24. W e e k s fi r s t c l a im s that the Com m ission’s f inding that t he City had reasonable grounds
to require a f

i tness-f or-duty exam was unsupported by substantial evi d ence. According to W e eks, the City had no reasonable grounds to question his f itness f or duty on J une 6, 2007.
H e argues that the City acted inappropriately w hen it considered his p ersonnel f i l e i n reaching a decision to o rder the f itness- f or-duty exam . He f

urther contends that there was not substantial evidence to support the City ’s justif ication that a f

itness-f or-duty exam was necessary because W eeks posed a potential liability to the City

. ¶25. W e f

i nd there was substantial evidence to support the Com m i ssion’s f inding that the City had reasonable grounds to request that W e e ks undergo a f itness-f o r-duty e x am . W eeks argued tha t h e broke no rules when he visited h is f riend in t he hospital. H owever, the hospital visitation alone did n ot cause Asst

. C h ief M cGilvary and Director Dunagan to conclude t hat a f

itness-f or-duty e xam was necessary . T he record i ndicates that Sgt. Brum ley , Asst. Chief McGilvary , and Director Dunagan we r e all concerned t hat W eeks’s em otional behavior on June 6, 2007, was unusual f or a police o f

f icer. The record f

urther indicates that
W e eks was o verly em otional, irate, and angry toward f ellow o f f icers, and accusatory of the

1 0police departm ent f o r a suspect’s suicide attem p t. ¶26. The decision t o send W eeks f or a psy c hological e valuation w a s n o t m ade without consideration. Director Dunagan testif ied that h e and A sst. C hief McGilvary were conc e r n e d that W e e ks was unf

it f or duty

. As a result of this concern, D irector Dunagan testif ied that he f ollowed standard procedure a nd conducted a f ull r eview of W eeks’s personnel f ile bef ore

m aking any f

urther decisions. Director Dunagan f urther testif

ied that W e e ks’s personnel f ile

c o n t a i n e d n

um erous prior incidents in which W e eks had display ed poor judgm ent wi t h r e g a r d
to w om en. W eeks’s behavior toward t he f em ale f r iend on J une 6, 2007, w h i l e on duty , indicated a continuation in the pattern of poor judgm e nt. ¶27. Further, W eeks’s personnel f ile contained a prior f

itness-f or-duty evaluation, wherein

a psy chol o gist concluded that W eeks had advanced f rom a low to a m oderate risk f or

em ploy m ent problem s. I n the prior evaluation, the psy chologist had predicted that, without interve n t i o n , W eeks would b e com e a high risk f or em ploy m ent problem s. Both Director Dunagan and Asst. Chief McGilvary testif ied that W eeks’s behavior, coupled with his prior history of poor judgm ent and the potential liab i l i t y to the C ity , constituted r easonable grounds to send W eeks f

or a f itness-f or-duty exam . ¶28. Director D unagan testif ied that he consulted the City ’s h um an-resources departm ent prior to taking any action. H e then proceeded with disciplinary action under section 5.12(b), which required that the City ’s a ppoin ting authority request t he m ental evaluation. May or Holloway testif

e d that h e m et with Director Dunagan a nd received inf o rm a t ion regarding the situation. May or Holloway f urther testif

ied that he, as the appointing authority , authorized

1 1the f

itness-f or-duty exam ina t i o n of W eeks to determ ine W eeks’s m ental suitability f or continued em

p loy m ent. ¶29. May or H oll o w a

y h a d r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e that W eeks’s e m otional state h ad com prom ised his a b ility to perf

orm h i s duties as a patrolm an. A review of the personnel f ile indicated that
W e eks had a history of p o or jud g me n t and prior psy chological indicators that could jeopardize the City

. B y authorizing the f itness-f or-duty exam , M ay or Holloway a cted in the best i nterest of both the public and the City

. Thus, May or Holloway had reasonable grounds
to question W eeks’s m e ntal s u i t a b i l i t y fo r c ontinued em

ploy m ent a n d to authorize the fitnessf or-duty exam . II. Due Process ¶30. W e eks next argues t hat the Com m ission erred when it determ i ned that the C ity acted in g ood f a ith and f ollowed the c orrect procedures under s ection 5.12(b)

. We e k s contends that he w as given lim ited or n o due process under section 5.12( b )

. He contends that the Com m i ssion analy

zed h is due-process argum ent u nder the incorrect standard. H e asserts that his argum ent sh o u l d h a ve b een a ssessed under “disciplinary a c tions” rather than “m ental evaluations.” ¶31. Director Dunagan testif ied that no disciplinary action was initiat e d u n der article 10 of the Civil Service Rules a n d Regulations because W eeks’s em ploy m ent a ction was not disciplinary i n nature; rather, i t w as m edical and g overned by section 5.12(b). The Com m i ssion f

ound that the Civil S ervice Rules and Regulations allow an agency ’s chain of

com m and to decide t he appropriate ty pe of action i n em

p loy m ent cases. Here, the City

1 2possessed the power to pursue a disciplinary action, or if reasonable grounds existed, to send

Of f icer W eeks f

o r a f itness-f or-duty exam . Director Dunagan t est i f i e d that W eeks’s

em otional state raised concerns regarding his m ental suitability f or continued em

ploy m ent. Theref ore, the City elected to pursue action under section 5.12(b), which governed m edical requirem ents. ¶32. W e eks asserts that t he Com m ission m isunderstood his position when it f ound that the City f ollowed the correct procedures required by section 5.12(b). He contends that section
5

. 1 2(b) had less-stringent t erm ination rules than article 10, which prevented him f ro m receiving a good-f

aith preterm i nation hearing. This is a m ischaracterizati o n o f the C o mmi ssion’s f

indings. The Com m ission noted that the City had discretion to dete r mi n e

w h i c h r o ute it would pursue regarding t he em p loy m ent action. The Com m ission f urthe r noted its obligation to abide by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, which prohibits a reviewing body

f rom substituting its own judgm ent f o r the City ’ s judgm ent. ¶33. Further, t he Com m ission considered W eeks’s a rgum e n t that he had b een denied due
process und e r t

h e d i s c i plinary process outlined in Mississippi C ode Annotated section 21-31- 23 (Rev. 2015). The C om m ission established t h a t e ach elem ent of d ue p rocess was m et. First, W eeks was given written notice of t he intended t erm ination, re a s o n s f or the
term ination, and an opportunity to respond. In a m eeting with May or Holloway , W eeks did in f act respond to Director Dunagan’s recom m endation f or t erm in a t i o n . Thus, the f irst elem ent o f d u e process was m et. Second, W eeks was n otif ied, in writing, by the of

f icial charged with m aking the decision

. A f t e r t h e m e eting with May or Holloway , W eeks was

1 3notif

ied of his term ination in a letter dated October 9, 2 0 0 7. This satisf ied t he second elem ent of d u e p r o c e s s . Last, W eeks was a llowed to f ile a n appeal with the Com m ission af ter the disciplinary action was taken. Both Director Dunagan and M ay or H o l l o w a y sent letters inf orm ing W eeks that he had ten day s, f rom the date o f the May o r ’s decision, to request a n investigation by the Com m ission. W eeks did in f act f ile a notice of appeal with the C o m mi s s ion on October 2 5, 2 007. Accordingly , the f inal elem e nt of due process was

m et. The Com m ission’s f inding t hat t he City acted in good f aith and provided W eeks with due process was supported by substantial evidence.
III. Psychological Evaluations ¶34. Weeks next argues that the Com m i ssion’s determ ination t hat he f ailed to provide a suf f i cient m ental evaluation was not supported by substantial evidence. He contends that the Com m i ssion e rred when it f ound t hat the City correctly relied on the opinions of Drs. Teater and W ebb. He f

u rther con t e n d s t h a t the Com m ission disregarded Dr. Fellows’s letter and clinical psy chologist Dr. Stef an Massong’s testim ony , which deem e d him f it f or du t y . W eeks also argues t hat the City denied him access to the psy c hological evaluations t hat it relied on when m aking the decision to term inate him

. ¶35. W e eks argues that the Com m ission overlooked Dr. Fellows’s opinion that “nothing in the health of Of

f icer W eeks

. . . would prevent his f u lf illing h is duties as a Biloxi Police O f f i cer.” However, the f

act r em a ins that May o r Holloway only requested a third op i n i o n af ter D r. Teater, a psy chologist, a nd Dr. Fellows, W eeks’s prim ary -care phy s ician, subm itted conf licting opinions. The third opinion, subm it t e d b y D r . Webb, was in line with Dr.

1 4Teater’s opinion t hat W eeks was unf it f or duty

. Thus, the Com m ission’s f i n d i ng that the

m edical o p inions of Drs. Teater and W ebb were the o nly two available to May or Holloway when he m ade his decision, was supported by substantial evidence. ¶36. Of the t hree opinions available to May or Holloway at the tim e of his decision, only

one f ound W eeks f

it f or duty

. M ay or H olloway , in his letter o f term ination, inf orm ed W eeks that the t erm ination was based o n the opinions o f a psy chologist and a psy chiatrist. Further,
W e eks had been given m ore t han f ou r mo n t h s t o obtain his own psy chological evaluation regarding his f

itness f or duty

. In t hat tim e f

ram e, W eeks h ad only provided a t wo-sentence letter f rom his prim a r y -care phy sician. Thus, at the tim e of his decision, May or Holloway had n o o ther psy chological evaluations to rely upon while considering W eeks’s term ination. ¶37. Weeks did f

i nally obtain his own psy c h ological evaluation. Howeve r , t h e Com m i ssion determ ined that Dr. Gasparrini’s report, d ated February 20, 2008, c o n f i rm ed
Drs. T eater and W ebb’s ea r l i e r o p i nions. Dr. Gasparrini opined t hat W e eks w a s unf it to perf orm his job as a police of

f icer unless and until he com pleted psy c hological counseling to develop boundaries between his personal and prof essional lif

e. ¶38. Dr. Gasparrini p assed a w a y prior t o the appeal hearing. W eeks was p erm itted to obtai n a n o t h e r e x pert to testif y at the hearing. At the hearing, Dr. Massong, clinical
psy c h ologist, opined that W eeks w as f it f or duty a t the t im e of Dr. Gasparrini’s evaluation, which was perf

orm ed f our m onths af

ter W eeks’s t erm ination. The Com m i ssion recognized
Dr. Massong’s report and opinion. However, the Com m ission f o und t hat Dr. Massong’s January 30, 2013 report and opinion were not available to M a y o r H o l loway i n 2007. Dr.

1 5Massong could not state, with certainty , that his evaluation of W eeks would have been the

sam e if the evaluation had been perf orm ed f ive y e ars earlier, in 2007. ¶39. The Com m ission f ound that the relevant p oint f or a n in q u i r y i nto whether or not W e eks was f

it f or duty was in 2007, when the t erm ination decision was m ade. Based on the record, the Com m ission determ ined that W eeks was term i nated because both a psy chologist and a psy c hiatrist f

ound him u nf

it f or duty

. The Com m ission’s f i n d ing that the City acted in good f aith when it term inated W eeks f or cause was supported by substantial evidence.
IV. Irrelevant Evidence ¶40. Finally , W eeks claim s that t he Com m ission relied o n i rrelevant evidence to af f irm the
term ination. He argues that t he Com m iss i o n erroneously adm itted b oth a draf t and f inal version of Dr. Gasparrini’s psy chological eva l u a t ion. He f urther contends that the Com m i ssion m ischaracterized Dr. Gasparrini’s f indings. ¶41. Prior to t he a

ppeal hearing, W eeks subm itted Dr. G asparrin i ’ s report as one of his exhibits. Af

ter t he hearing was postpone d , t h e C o mmission set a n ew deadline f or the subm ission of exhibits. In response to the new deadline, W eeks rem oved t he initial report, labeled Gasparrini-2, and replaced it with a se c o n d r e port, l abeled Gasparrini-1. The City then subm itted Gasparrini-2 as i ts own e xhibit. W eeks claim ed that Gasparrini-2 was a draf t report that was inadvertently placed with the exhibits f iled with the Com m ission. ¶42. In response to W eeks’s challenge to the City ’s use of the retracted psy chological evaluation, the Com m ission f i rst noted that there was no indication that the report, labeled Gasparrini-2, was intended as a “draf t.” The report contained no such language and did not

1 6bear a “draf t” stam p . Further, the report w a s ty p ed on letterhead and signed by Dr. Gasparrini. The Com m ission also f ound that t he City had not acted im properly by obtaining the i nf orm ation contained w ithin t he r eport. Theref ore, the C om m ission f

ound that the City

was f ree to ref e r to the report as evidence. The Com m i ssion noted that it was W eeks’s own counsel that had s u

bm itted both of the reports, and accordingly , it would consider both reports. ¶43. The C om m ission f urther noted that the content o f D r . G a s p a rrini’s two r eports was i d e n t i c a l u ntil the last page. The f inal page of Gasparrini-2 contained the f ollowin g language, which was not contained in the report labeled Gasparrini-1: [ C]onf using the power dy

nam ics of his role as a u nif

o rm e d police of

f icer on duty with his dating relationships has repeatedly led to dif f iculties f or him in his career. T hese should be addressed through f u rther counseling bef

o re he tries to resum e work as a police of f icer or i n a s im ilar position. At present Mr. W e eks is h ighly m otivated to return to work f or the police departm ent. H e is hopef ul t ha t h e c a n win his case in court and regain his job. He m ay be capable of working successf ully as a police of

f icer if he caref

ully separates his work roles f

rom his social lif

e. ¶44. W e f

ind that the Com m ission’s decision to consider both versions of Dr. Gasparrini’s reports was based on substa n t i a l e v i d ence. W eeks provided no testim ony or evidence to support his claim

that the report, labeled Gasparrini-2, was intended as a draf t version of

a f inal report. ¶45. To sum m arize, W eeks was observed behaving in a m anner inconsistent with the ty pe of behavior expected of

a trained police of

f icer. Af ter reviewing Sgt. Brum ley ’s narrative and W eeks’s personnel f

ile, Director Dunagan h ad r easonable grounds to question W eeks’s

m ental state. D irector Dunagan f ollowed the City ’s rules and regulatio n s by ref e rring the

1 7m atter to hum an resourc e s and May or Holloway

. May or Holloway , a s the a ppointing authority , ordered a f

itness-f or-duty exam ination. Af

ter the f indings of

a psy chologist and

a psy chiatrist, W eeks was term inated and given a n o pportunity to appeal t he City ’s decision.
It f ollows that there w as subst a n t ial evidence t o support the Com m ission’s d ecision.
W e eks’s claim

to the contrary

is without m erit. ¶46. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, IS AFFIRMED. ALL C OSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT. LEE, C.J., IRVING, P.J., BARNES, ISHEE, C ARLTON, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR.

1 8