I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CC- 0 2 1 8 9 - S CT M I S S I S S I PP I DEPAR TM

ENT OF HUM

AN S ERVICES
v. CAROL YN K. McNEEL D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 20/ 2007 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J OSE P H H. LOP ER, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W I NST ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : KA THER I NE J AN E CA LDW ELL ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LE E: DAV I D E. BANE, J R. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES DI S P OS I T I ON: AF F I RM ED I N P AR T ; RE VE RS E D AND R E M A N D E D I N PA R T - 06/ 04/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E G R A V E S, P . J. , R A N D O L P H A N D P I E R C E , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. In N ov em ber 19 99 , C arol yn K
. M cN ee l w as term inated fr om her em ploym ent as a D H S -S o c ial W o rk e r w ith th e W in sto n C o u n ty D e p a rtm e n t o f H u m a n S e rv ice s. In A p ril 2004, thi s C our taf

f i r m ed t he deci s i on of the M i s s i s s i ppi E m pl oyee A ppeal s B oar d ( “EA B ”) to re instate h er, “w ith b ac k p ay an d b en efit s, as o f th e d ate o f t erm ination , su b ject t o set o ff of any s um r ece i ved f

r om others our ces . ” Fol l ow i ng the r ece i ptof herback- pay aw ar d and herr ei ns t at ementt o the pos i t i on of D H S- Soc i a l W orke rw i th the K e mperCounty D epart m ent of H um an Servi ces , M cN eel f i l ed an appeal w i th the E A B r ai s i ng m ul t i pl e i s s ues r egar di ng b ac k p ay an d reinstatem en t. A n o rde r o f the h ea ri n g o ffi ce r w as affirm ed b y the “ F u ll B o ard

### The orde r of thehearing off ic er state d that

“theac ti on of [ theMDHS] is se t a si de and 1 

### [McNee l] is her ebyre ins tated to her pos ition, wi th back

payand bene

fi ts, as of thedate of te rminati on, subjec t to se t off of anys um rec eive d f

rom ot her sources .” (E mph asis add ed.) 2 O r der ” of

the EA B
. B oth the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof H um an S ervi ces (“M D H S”) and M cN eel appea l ed ther ef r om . A N ovember2007 or derof the C i r cui tC our tof

W i ns t on C ou nty, M i s s i s s i pp i , a f f i r med i n pa r t , a f

f i r med a nd r e mand e d i n pa r t , a nd r e ve r s ed and
r emanded i n partthe “Ful l B oar d O r der ” of the EA B
. Feel i ng aggr i eved, the M D H S f i l ed
n o tice o f a p p e a l, an d M c N e e l filed n o tice o f c ro ss -a p p e a l. FACTS ¶2
. O n N ovember 10, 1999 , M c N e e l ’ s e mpl oy ment a s a D H S- Soc i a l W orke r w i t h t he W in sto n C o u n ty D e p a rtm e n t o f H u m a n S e rv ic e s w a s te rm in a ted . M c N e e l su b se q u e n tly
r ece i ved unem pl oym entbenef i t s t ot al i ng $4, 940. O n A pr i l 8, 2004, thi s C our taddr es s ed M cN eel ’ s t erm i nat i on, f i ndi ng:
n o e rro r in th e re c o rd o r in th e h e a rin g o ffic e r’s o rd e r to re in sta te [h e r] w ith back pa y. [ ] T hi s C our tf i nds thatthe deci s i on of the [ E A B ] w as s uppor t ed by 1 the e v iden ce , w as n o t arbitrary o r ca p ri ciou s, an d d o es n o t violate an y statu tory orcons t i tut i onal ri ght
. T her ef or e, thi s C ourtaf

f i r m s the ci r cui tcourtj udgm ent a ff ir m in g th e d e c is io n o f t h e [E A B ]. Mis s . D ep’t

of Hum an Serv s . v. McN eel , 8 6 9 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 2 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶ 3
. B a se d th e re o n , M c N e e l rec e iv e d b a c k p a y to talin g $ 1 4 7 ,2 9 4 .1 0 a n d w a s re in sta ted to the p osi t i on of D H S -So cial W o rke r w ith the K em p er C o u n ty D ep artm en t of H u m an S ervi ces. O n J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , M c N e e l a n d h e rh u s b a n d , B ill M c N e e l, m e t w ith W illie F o rt n e r, a

“ [f] in a n c ial [c ]oo rd in a to r in c h a rg e o f p a y ro ll a n d a c c o u n ts p a y a b le” w ith th e M D H S ; G lo ria Ja c k so n , a “ p e rso n n e l d ire c to r” fo r th e M D H S ; an d D a re n V a n d e rv e n d e r o f th e M D H S , to

### 3

di s c us s mul t i pl e i s s ue s M c N e e l ha d r e ga r di ng he rba c k p a y a nd r e i ns t a t e ment . Fol l ow i ng thatm eet i ng, M cN eel w as tr ans f err ed l at er al l y t o the N es hoba C ounty D epart m entof H um an Ser vi ces . St i l l aggr i eved, M cN eel i ni t i at ed and pr ogr es s ed t hr ough t he mandat ed gr i evanc e p r o c e d u r e wi th th e M DHS
. On J u l y 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , M c Ne e l f i l e d a n a p p e a l wi th th e E AB
r egar di ng herback pay an d rei ns t at ement . A ccor di ng t o the hea r i ng of f i cer , the A pr i l 28, 2 0 0 5 , h ea ri n g p ertaine d to “w h ethe r or n o t th e [M D H S ] has co m p li ed w ith the C o u rt ’s O rd e r.” ¶4. T he A ugus t16, 2005, or derof the hea r i ng of

f i cerf ound: ( 1) T he [ M D H S] , ra thert han r ei ns t at i ng [ M cN eel ] , t r eat ed heras an i ndi vi dual thathas been r e- empl oyed t o the s ame pos i t i on; he r ei n the [ M D H S] f ai l ed or refu sed to fo ll o w the C o u rt ’s O rde r. [ M cN eel ] s houl d have be en tr eat ed as an i ndi vi dual thathas neverbeen ter m in a te d f

ro m h e r p o sitio n , n o t as o n e re -e m p lo y e d ; h e r b a c k p a y sh o u ld h av e b ee n ca lcu late d a s D H S -S o cial W o rke r, w h o is en ti tl ed to ev ery advanc ement. . . o ff

ere d and gr ant ed t o D H S- Soci al W or ker s dur i ng the per i od of t i m e f r om N ovember1999 t o and t hr ough A pr i l 2004. H erpr evi ous r e c or d a nd the f

a c ttha tdu r i ng thi s pe r i od of t i me s he ke pthe r[ s ] t a t e s oc i al w o rk e r lic e n s e in e ffe c t, refle c ts th a t sh e w o u ld h a v e q u a lified fo r a ll advanc ement s of

f er ed t o D H S- Soci al W or ker s , b ut f orthe arbi tr ary and c a p ric io u s a c tio n o f th e [M D H S ] fro m N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 9 to a n d th ro u g h A p ril 2004. H erback pa y s hal l be r eca l cul at ed ac cor di ngl y. (2 ) T h e [M D H S ] did n o t rein sta te [M c N e e l] to h e r p o sitio n in W in sto n C o u n ty

. . . ; th e y a g a in c h o se to ig n o re th e O rd e r o f th e C o u rt a n d p la c e d h e r in K emperC ounty . . . , a di r ectvi ol at i on of the C our tO r der
. [ M cN eel ] i s t o be pl ace d i n W i ns t on C ounty . . . and gi ven cons i derat i on f orany pr om ot i onal oppor tuni ty t o a C ount y D i r ect or ’ s pos i t i on. ( 3) [ M cN eel ] w as w r ongf ul l y t erm i nat ed i n N ovember , 1999, due t o the arbi tr ary and capr i ci ous act i on o f t he [ M D H S] ; the O r derof the H ear i ng O f f i ce rs t a t e d “ [ M c N e e l ] i s h e r e by r e i ns t a t e d t o he rp os i t i on , wi th ba c k pay a n d b e n e f

i t s , a s o f th e d a t e o f

th e t e r mi n a t i o n , s u bj e c tt o s e to f f o f a n y s u ms r ece i ved f

r om others our ces . ” O ne of t he benef

i t s re s t or ed t o [ M cN eel ] , as of the dat e of

the t erm i nat i on, w as thatof f r ee medi cal i ns ur ance , as pr ovi ded by

### Mississipp i Co de S ection 25-9- 132(1) provi desthat a n em ploye e aggri eve d by a f

inal 2 

### dec is ion of the EAB m ay a ppea l “ to t

he c ircui t c ourt

of the princ ipa l c ounty of the emplo yee’s emp loyment o r th e C ircuit Co urt of th e First Ju dicial D istrict of H ind s Co unty

. . . . ” Mi ss . CodeAnn. § 25- 9-132( 1) ( Rev. 2006). 4 the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi t hr ough herempl oym entw i th the [ M D H S]
. A s the di r ectr es ul tof

pr otr act ed l i t i gat i on by the [ M D H S] , [ M cN eel ] w as w i thoutthe benef i tof f r ee medi cal i ns ur ance . A s an empl oyee of t he [ M D H S] , fr om the dat e of t erm i nat i on, i ti s i ncum bentthat[ M cN eel ] be pr ovi ded the bene f i tof fre e m e d ica l in su ra n c e a n d if n e c e s s a ry to b e fin a n c ially re im b u rse d , if per s on al funds w er e expe nded f orm edi cal i ns ur ance , dur i ng thi s per i od of t i m e. ( 4) [ M cN eel ] seeks i nt er es ton herback pa y; r ei m bur s ementf orcont i nui ng pr of es s i onal educa t i on; [ S] oci al [ S] ecur i ty t axes ; t he di f f er ence i n i ncome t ax attr i but ed t o t he l um p s um paymentof back pa y; [ c] our tf

ees , l egal f

ees and outof pocketcos t s . [ M cN eel ] i s noten t i t l ed t o i nt er es ton herback pa y; the paymentof

i nt er es tas s etouti n Sect i on 75- 17- 1 of the M i ss i s s i ppi C ode of 19 72 , A nn otat ed, do es not apply t o the Stat e o[r ] po l i t i cal subd i vis i on s. C o n tin u in g p ro fe ss io n a l ed u c a tio n is n e ith e r a p a rt o f b a c k p a y [n]o r a b e n e fit, and thi s r eques ti s deni ed; nei theri s s he ent i t l ed t o any r ei m bur s ementon [ S] oci al [ S] ecur i ty t axes orany r ei m bur s emen td ue t o the s t at e and f eder al tax e s o n th e b a c k p a y lu m p su m p a y m e n t. T he [ E A B ’ s ] j ur i s di ct i on i s s etoutby s t atut e; the s t atut e does notpr ovi de authori ty to aw ard cou rtcost [ s] , ou tof pock etco st s, or at t orney fees, [ ther ef or e, ] thi s r eques ti s deni ed. ( 5) A ny r eca l cul at i on of the back pay w i l l t ake i nt o cons i der at i on the f actthat [ M cN eel ] di d r ece i ve s om e f unds f r om others our ces dur i ng the per i od of l i t i gat i on. B o th M cN ee l an d th e M D H S th en requ ested “rev iew by th e F u ll B o ard
. ” T h e “ F u ll B o ard O rde r” o f th e E A B affirm ed the o rde r of the h ea ri n g o ffi ce r. ¶5. O n Jul y 14 , 2 00 6, the M D H S fi l ed a “P et i t i on forW ri tof C ert i orar i w i th S up ers edeas” i n the C i rcui tC ou rtforthe F i rs tJ ud i ci al D i stri ctof H i nd s C ou nty, M i ssi ssi pp i
. O n A ug ust 3, 20 06 , M cN eel fi l ed no t i ce o f appe al i n the C i rcui tC ou rtof W i nst on C ou nty. O n A ug ust 2

### 5

9, 2006, the C i r cui tC our tf orthe Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty ent er ed a “ T r ans f er O r der ” pr ovi di ng thati n the i nt er es tof “j udi ci al economy” and bec aus e “the l ocu s of the act i on r es t s i n W i ns t on C ounty, ” the M D H S’ pe t i t i on i s c om bi ned w i th M cN eel ’ s appea l and

“ tra n sfe rre d to th e C irc u it C o u rt o f W in sto n C o u n ty . . . .” O n O c to b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , the C irc u it C o u rt o f W in sto n C o u n ty g ra n ted th e M D H S ’ “ P e tit io n fo r W rit o f C e rtio ra ri w ith S u p e rs e d e a s .” ¶ 6
. S u b se q u e n tly , the N o v e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , o rd e r o f th e c irc u it co u rt p ro v id e d th a t: 1. T he part s of

t he dec i s i on of

the [ E A B ] thatdeni ed [ M cN eel ’ s ] r eques tf or r ei m bur s ementof

tr avel and t el ephone expens es a nd c om p t i m e cr edi t ed t o her per s onal l eave t i m e; t hataw ar ded herr ei m bur s ementof per s onal f

unds expende d on m edi cal i ns ur ance w hi l e denyi ng herthe es t i m at ed val ue of the benef i tof havi ng m edi cal i ns ur ance ; thatdeni ed herr ei m bur s ementf or cont i nui ng educa t i on e xpens es , a t t orney f ees and r el at ed cos t s ; thatdeni ed her rei m bu rs em ent of

add i t i on al f

ederal i nco m e t axes; and t hat den i ed h er r equ est f oran i ndepende ntf

i r m t o cal cul at e moni es ow ed t o herar e af f i r m ed
. 2. M cN eel ’ s r equ estt o have thi s courtcl ar i f y the l anguage of

the hea r i ng off i cer con cerni ng her back p ay an d p rom oti on s i s deni ed, how eve r, thatis s ue is r em anded

t o the [ E A B ] f

or t hem t o cl ar i f

y w hatpr om ot i ons or a d v a n c e m e n ts s h e w a s a w a rd e d , if a n y , b y jo b tit le, a n d th e sp e c ific p a y ra te f r om w hi ch .
. . the bac k pay thats he w as aw ar ded i s t o be ca l cul at ed. 3. T he partof

the d eci si on of the [ E A B ] thatdeni ed M cN eel pr e- j udgm ent i nter esti s r eve rs ed and r em anded fort he purpos e of

det erm i ni ng w hetherpr ej udgm ent[ i nt er es t ] s houl d be aw ar ded, and i f s o, atw hatr at e. 4. T he par to f the deci s i on of the [ E A B ] thatdeni ed M cN eel pos t - j udgm ent i nter esti s r eve rs ed and r em anded f ora det er m i nat i on of

the pos t -

j udgm ent rat e of i nter estthat s he is t o recei ve o n h er aw ard of back p ay an d b enefi t s. 5. T he partof

the deci s i on of

the [ E A B ] thatde ni ed M cN eel ’ s r eques tthather b ac k pa y be pro p erly rep o rt ed t o th e S o cial S ec u ri ty A d m inistrati o n [( “S S A ”)] i s r eve rs ed and r ender ed , and the [ M D H S] i s t o pr oper l y r eportherback pa y

### Th e ration ale beh indeach d ecisionwith in th e circuit co urt’s o rder, d iscussedin its 3 

### Novem ber 20, 2007, opini on, wi llbe a ddre ss ed in theAnalysi s s ec ti on infra
. Is sue s ( 3), (4), and (6) wererai se d by theMDHS on appe al . There maining is sue s 4 

### were raisedbyMcN eel oncross-ap peal. 6 t o the Soci al Secur i ty A dm i ni s tr at i on pur s uantt o the rul es and r egul at i ons is s u e d b y th e In te rn a l R e v e n u e S e rv ic e [( “ IR S ” )].[ ] 3 ( E m phas i s added)
. B as ed ther eon, the M D H S f i l ed not i ce of

a ppeal a nd M cN eel f

i l ed not i ce
o f c ro ss -a p p e a l. I S S UES ¶7
. T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: ( 1) W hetherM cN eel s houl d be r ei m bur s ed fortr avel expens es and cr edi t ed c o m p e n sa to ry tim e o ff to h e r p e rso n a l lea v e b a la n c e fo r b e in g p lac e d in K emperC ounty and l at ertr ans f err ed t o N es hoba C ounty. (2) W hetherM cN eel s houl d be aw ar ded a c ar eer - l adderpr om ot i on t o Soci al W o rke r A d v an ce d an d /or p rom o ted to A rea S o cial W o rke r S u p erv isor. (3 ) W h e th e r M c N e e l sh o u ld b e c o m p e n sa ted fo r h a v in g n o S o c ial S e c u rity earni ngs f

r om 2000 thr ough 2003 vi a M D H S “pr oper l y” r epo rt i ng herback w ages t o t he Soci al Secur i ty A dm i ni s tr at i on. ( 4) W hetherM cN eel s houl d be compens at ed f orm edi cal i ns ur ance and m edi cal expens es i ncurr ed by vi r tue of herw r ongf

ul t erm i nat i on. ( 5) W hetherM cN eel s houl d be compens at ed f orcont i nui ng prof

es s i onal educa t i on expens es i ncurr ed by vi r tue of herw r ongf

ul t erm i nat i on. ( 6) W hetherM cN eel s houl d r ece i ve i nt er es ton the bac k pay o w ed t o herby the M D H S. ( 7) W hetherM cN eel shoul d be com pens at ed f orl egal f ees i ncurr ed by vi r tue of herw r ongf

ul t erm i nat i on. ( 8) W hetherM cN eel s houl d be c om pens at ed f orl egal f ees i ncurr ed r egar di ng her une m ploym ent benefi t s. ( 9) W hetherM cN eel sho ul d be compens at ed f oraddi t i onal i ncome t axat i on i ncurr ed by vi r tue of

herw r ongf

ul t erm i nat i on. (1 0 ) W h e th e r a ll m o n ie s o w e d to M c N e e l sh o u ld b e c a lcu late d b y a c a p a b le a c c o u n tin g fi rm o r t h e M is s is s ip p i S ta te A u d ito r’ s O ff ic e .[ ] 4“Subs t ant i al e vi dence means more than a s ci nt i l l a ora s us pi ci on. ” Miss. S tate D ep ’t 5 of Heal t h v. N atchezCm t

y. Hos p. , 743 So. 2d 973, 977 ( M i s s . 1999)
. I n exami ni ng t he r ecor d as a w hol e, thi s C our tw i l l nothe s i t at e t o r ever s e the E A B ’ s or deri f i tw as “bas ed on a mer e s ci nt i l l a of

e vi dence , a nd i s agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the cr edi bl e evi dence

. . . . ” W alters v. Mis s . D ep’t

of E con. and Cm t

y. D ev. , 768 So. 2d 893, 895 ( M i s s . 2000) ( quot i ng Johnson v. Fer guson , 4 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 1 9 4 -95 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 )). 

### “[ W] he r e an a dm i ni s tr at i vea ge nc y e rr s a s am att e r of l aw, c ourt s of

c ompe te nt 6 

### juris dic ti on shoul d not he si tateto inte rve ne.” Gran t C t r . H os p. , I nc . v . H eal t h Group of Jacks on, I

nc. , 528 So. 2d 804, 808 ( Mis s. 1988). 7 S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶8. T he judi ci al revi ew of E A B decis i on s:
s hal l be l i m i t ed t o a r evi ew of the r ecor d m ade be f

or e the [ E A B ] orhear i ng of f i cert o det erm i ne i f

t he act i on of the [ E A B ] i s unl aw f ul f orthe r eas on that i tw as: (a ) N o t su p p o rte d b y a n y su b sta n tial e v id e n c e ;[ ] 5 ( b) A rbi tr ary orcapr i ci ous ; or ( c) I n vi ol at i on of

s om e s t atut ory orcons t i tut i on al r i ghtof the e m p lo y e e .[ ]

6 M iss. C o d e A n n . § 2 5 -9-1 3 2 (2) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). A N A L Y S IS I . W he t he r M c N e e l s houl d be r e i m bur s e d f or t r av e l e xpe ns e s and cre di t ed com pen sat ory t i m e of f t o her pers onal l eave bal ance f or be i ng pl ac e d i n K e m pe r C ount y a nd l at e r t r ans f e r r e d t o Nes hoba C ounty. ¶9. I n N ovember 1999, M cN eel w as t erm i nat ed f r om he re m pl oym enta s a D H S- Soci al W or kerw i th the W i ns t on C ount y D epart m entof H um an Ser vi ces . T he or derof the hea r i ng of f i cer , s ubs equent l y af

f i r m ed by t hi s C our t , pr ovi ded thatM cN eel w as t o be “r ei ns t at ed to h er p osi t i on , w i th b ack p ay a ndben ef i t s . . . . ” (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). N o n e th e les s, in A p ril 2004, the M D H S r ei ns t at ed M cN eel t o the pos i t i on of D H S- Soci al W or ker , al bei ti n K emper

### Acc ording to Bi lly Mangol d, the Di vis ion Dire ct or of Fam ily and Chi ldren Se rvi ce s 7 

### for theMDHS, and Tabi tha Ste wart, theAre a Soc ia l Wor ker Super vis or for the Winst on Co unty D epartment of H umanServ ices, there w as no t a vacan cy inth e W insto n C ounty Dep artment o f Human S ervices at th e time of M cNeel’s rein statement. M oreo ver, M ang old te stif ie d that Ke mpe r County: was a one- worke r county. Weha d a supe rvi sor

that c ould wor

k one on one
. We h ad a n ew . . . comp uter system, th at [McN eel] . . . had n ot w ork ed w ith that came ineffect wh ile she w as out. An d it w as ju st felt th at it wo uldbe in her bes t inte re st , a s we llas thebes t inte re st of [the MD HS]
. . . f

or he r t o be pla ce d in Ke mpe r County. Allre fe re nces to McNeel ’s hearing te stim ony ar e f ound in “ Appel lant’ s 8 

### Rec onstruc te d Tes timony”bec aus e “ thetrans cript of the s ec ond day of

thehearing (June 13, 20 05 ) was eith er lost an d/o r destro yed .” 8 C o u n ty , rat h e r th a n W in sto n C o u n ty . O n Ju n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , M c N e e l w a s th e n late ra lly 7 tr a n s f e rr e d t o Ne s h o b a Co u n ty . Al t h o u g h t h e s a me p o s i t i o n i n W i n s t o n Co u n ty b e c a me
vaca nton D ece m ber31, 2004, atthe t i m e of the A pr i l 28, 2005, hear i ng, M cN eel r emai ned empl oyed i n N es hoba C ounty. A tthe hea r i ng, M cN eel as s ert ed thats he “w ant [ ed] t o be
r ei m bur s ed f

orw or ki ng aw ay f

r om W i ns t on C ount y. I shoul d be r ei m bur s ed $1, 555 f or tr avel expens es t o K emperand N es hoba C ount i es . I shoul d have 95 com p hour s f ort r avel tim e a d d e d to m y tim e re c o rd s .” 8 ¶ 1 0
. A c c o rd in g to th e c irc u it co u rt: [ t ] he orderof

the hea r i ng of

f i cerr ender ed on A ugus t16, 2005, or der ed that M cN eel be p l aced in W i nst on C ou nty. T ravel ex pen ses, tel eph on e exp enses, and per s onal l eave w er e not addr es s ed s peci f

i cal l y by t he hear i ng of

f i cer , nor w e re th e y a d d re s s e d in th e fu ll b o a rd ’s a ff ir m a n c e . T

h is c o u rt w ill

tre a t th e ir s i l ence as a deni al
. McN eelhas of f ered no au tho ri t

y i n supp ortof

her requ est fo rs u c h re im b u rs e m e n ts . T heref ore, aft er r eview i ng the record, this cou rt f i nds thatther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d t o aff i rm the hea r i ng off i cer’ s and ful l bo ard’ s deci si on s. (E m p h a s is a d d e d .)

### 9

¶1 1
. M issi ssipp i E m p loy ee A p p ea ls B o ard A d m inistrati v e R u le 2 4 (A ) p rov ides , in p a rt, th a t “ [t]h e [E A B ] m a

y re in sta te a pr evai l i ng party i nt o empl oym entw i th hi s orher
res po nd i ng agenc y a n d re sto re a ll h is o r h e r e m p lo y e e rig h ts a n d

b e n e fit s i nc l ud i ng ba ck p a y , m e d ica l leav e a n d p erso n al l ea v e.” M iss. E m p lo y e e A p p e a ls B o a rd A d m in istra tiv e R u le 2 4 (A ) (e m p h a sis ad d e d ). T h e o rig in a l o rd e r o f th e h e a rin g o ffic e r, af firm e d b y th is C o u rt, di d r ei ns t at e M cN eel “t o herpos i t i on, w i th back pa y and bene f i t s . . . . ” H ow ever , the tr avel
r ei m bur s ementand per s onal
- l eave cr edi tw hi ch M cN eel now s eeks ar os e s ubs equentt o t hat
o r i g i n a l o r d e r . M o r e o v e r , J a c k s o n t e s t i f i e d a tth e Ap r i l 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , h e a r i n g th a tth e M DHS “di d chec k w i th the St at e Per s onnel B oar d and they s ai d an empl oyee coul d be l ocat ed
w her everbe i t100 m i l es . ” Fi nal l y, thi s C our tf i nds thattr avel r ei m bur s ementi s notamong th e b e n e fits a v a ilab le to M c N e e l. M c N e e l as se rts th a t b e c a u se th e M iss iss ip p i S tate E m p lo y e e H a n d b o o k lists “ tra v e l an d e x p e n s e s” a s a n e m p lo y e e b e n e fit, th e E A B e rre d in fa ilin g to s o g ra n t. See M i s s . S t a t e Em p l o y e e Ha n d b o o k § 8 a t4 1
. Th i s Co u r td e e ms M cN eel ’ s ar gum entt o be i nacc ur at e, as the tr avel r ei m bur s ementr ef err ed t o i n t he M i s s i s s i ppi St at e Em pl oyee H andbook per t ai ns t o “t r avel i n the per f or m ance of

an of f i ci al d u ty ,” n o t m e re tra v e l to a c o u n ty a s s ig n m e n t. Id
. T her ef or e, t hi s C our tfi nds no err ori n the ci r cui tcourt ’ s af

f i r m ance of the E A B ’ s deci s i on t o orde rthatM cN eel be pl ace d i n W i ns t on C ounty, w i thouttr avel r ei m bur s ementorper s onal l eave cr edi t . T hi s C our tcannotf i nd t hat th e E A B ’s a c tio n w a s u n su p p o rte d b y su b sta n tial e v id e n c e , arb itrar y o r c a p ric io u s, o r in
v io la tio n o f M c N e e l’ s s ta tu to ry o r c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 25- 9- 132( 2) (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e re fo re , this C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.

### Acc ording to J ac kso n, the career l adde r “ al lows for theem ploye es in a

job s erie s 9 

### suc h as
. . . Soc ia l Wor

ker s, . . . to . . . rem ain in t heir c urr ent

posi ti on and pin numbe r and movein that

serie s by virt

ue of addi ti onaleducati on, expe ri enc e. ” In Sept em ber 1999, the Soci alWorke r pos itions w er e r ec la ss if ie d to DHS- Soci alWorke r, DHS-Soc ia l Wor ker Seni or, and DHS- Soci alWorke r Advance d. T h is a lig n e d w ith M c N e e l’s te stim o n y th a t, be y o n d th e in v e stig a tio n , sh e “ m e t all 10 the r equi r ement s t o r ece i ve t he ra i s e and pr om ot i on t o the pos i t i on of Soci al W or ker A d v a n c e d .” 

### 10 II. W h eth er M cN ee l sh o u ld b e a w a rd ed a c a re er -l a d d er p ro m o ti o n to Soci al W orke r A dvanced and/ or prom ot ed t o A rea Soci al W orke r Sup ervi s or. ¶12. Pr i ort o he rt erm i nat i on i n 1999, M cN eel a ppl i ed f orboth a ca r eer - l adder pr om ot i on 9 t o the pos i t i on of

Soci al W or kerA dvance d and a pr om ot i on t o the posi t i on of A r ea Soci al W or kerSuper vi s orf

orthe W i ns t on C ounty D epart m entof H um an Ser vi ces . Such pr om ot i onal opportuni t i es w er e notre f l ect ed i n t he back pay thatM cN eel r ece i ved f r om t he M D H S. ¶ 1 3
. R e g a rd in g th e c a re e r-la d d e r p ro m o tio n , S tew a rt tes tified th a t sh e in fo rm e d M c N e e l, “I cannots end i n [ your ] appl i cat i on due t o you havi ng been a s ubj ectof i nves t i gat i on by Pr ogr am Int egr i ty, ther ef or e, you ar e notel i gi bl e f orthe i nf or m at i on I have r ece i ved. Y ou
m ay s end i ti n your s el f

and s ee w hathappens
. ” Li kew i s e, a ccor di ng t o J acks on, M cN eel w as ineligible fo r th e c are er-ladd er p ro m o ti o n “[b]eca u se o f th e inv esti g ati o n , the d isci p li n ary act i on[ , ] ” w hi ch cul m i nat ed i n her t erm i nat i on. O therthan the i nves t i gat i on, J acks on tes tified th a t M c N e e l w o u ld h a v e b e e n q u a lifie d fo r th e p ro m o tio n . A t th e h e a rin g , B ill 10 M cN eel , M cN eel ’ s hus band and a cert i f i ed publ i c ac count ant , w as of f er ed and a cce pt ed as
a n a c c o u n tin g e x p e rt . A m o n g th e e x h ib its o ffe re d a n d a d m itt e d o v e r o b jec tio n d u rin g h is tes tim o n y w a s th e “ R e c o n stru c tio n o f S o c ial W o rk e r A d v a n c e d S a lar y B a se d o n A v a ilab le

### Bil l McNee l t es tifie d that t hes e c al cul ations wer e ba se d upon sa lary infor mati on 11 

### from t he J ac kson Clarion Le dger bec aus e the MDHS “ did not gi ve us anything at a llto wor k with .” Allindividua ls on theli st of e li gibl es , with the e xcepti on of St ewart , rec ei ved a 12 

### score o f 10 0 o n th eir certificate letters. Stew art receiveda 99
. H o w ev er , accord ing to O’B ryant, that sco re an dth e ap plicant’s wo rk experien ce “are on ly p art of th e wh ole b ig picture that I w ou ld lo okat in mak ing a recommen datio n to hire so mebo dy. . . .” 11 I nf or m at i on. ” The cal cul at i ons ther ei n pr ovi ded thatM cN eel ’ s t ot al unpai d s al ary f r om 11 N ovember1999 t hr ough M ay 2004 t ot al ed $165, 362. 70, and w hen i ncl udi ng ei ghtper cent i nt er es tcompounded bi
- w eekl y a nd a f i ve per centl at e f

ee on a l l pr i nci pal and i nt er es t , t he t ot a l b e c a me $ 20 8, 30 2. 79
. H oweve r , J oh n W
. O ’ Br ya nt , the r e gi on a l di r e c t orof the M D H S, t es t i f i ed thats ever al i ndi vi dual s ha d be en deni ed the ca r eer - l adderpr om ot i on beca us e “[ t ] he fu n d in g w a s n o t th e re .” ¶14. A s t o the A r ea Soci al W or kerSuper vi s orpr om ot i on, i n O ct ober1999, M cN eel w as on the l i s tof

el i gi bl es a l ong w i th f

i ve ors i x otheri ndi vi dual s . J acks on t es t i f i ed thatM cN eel
w a s c o n sid e re d fo r th e p o sitio n , b u t th e p ro m o tio n w a s u lti m a tely g iv e n to S te w a rt. 12 M cN eel count er ed thats he “w as the m os tqual i f i ed appl i cant ” and “ [ i ] f

notf orthe w r ongf

ul te rm in a tio n , I b e lie v e I w o u ld h a v e b e e n p ro m o te d to th e p o s itio n . . . .” ¶15. Sect i on 5. 04. 13 o f t he M i ssi ssi pp i S t at e P er s onnel B oar d Pol i cy and Pr ocedur es M anual s t at es that“[ a] n i ndi vi dual s epar at ed i n good s tandi ng f orr eas ons otherthan an author i zed l eave of

abs ence m ay be r e- em pl oyed i nt o the sa m e job class f r om w hi ch term inated
. ” M iss. S tat e P ers. B d
. P o li cy & P roc ed u res M an u al § 5
. 0 4
. 1 3 (em p h asis ad d ed ). Itfurthe r pro v ides that “[t ] h e a u tho ri ze d salary for r e- em pl oym ent

s hal l be no m or e than the
cur r ent s alar y at the t i m e of

s epar at i on unl es s s alar y r eal ignm ent

s w er e ef f ect ed si nce the

### Like wis e, J ac kson te stif ie d that “ theonly gui del inethat wehaveothe r than what’ s 13 

### in theCourt Orde r to fol low in te rm s of re ins tating an e mpl oyeeis what ’s in t he Mi ss is sippi State E mplo yee H andbo okand. . . I believ e in the h andbo okit do es say re[-]emplo yment.” 12 dat e of s epar at i on . ” Id
. ( emphasi s added)
. H ow ever , acc or di ng t o the A ugus t31, 2004, lette r to J a c k so n o f J a n ie S im p so n , th e P o licy D ire c to r f o r th e S tate P e rso n n e l B o a rd , “S tate Per s onnel B oar d pol i ci es do notspeci fi cal l y ad dress re in sta tem e n ts beca us e th e ter m s o f a rei nstatem ent w ou ld b e decided b y the a pp ropri ate court .” (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) 13 ¶1 6
. T h e o ri g inal o rde r of the h ea ri n g o ffi ce r “ r ei ns tat ed [M cN ee l] to h er p o sit io n , w ith b a c k p a y a n d b e n e fits, a s o f th e d a te o f te rm in a tio n . . . .” (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) A t th e A p ril 28 , 200 5, heari ng , the heari ng off i cer r ei t erat ed thatM cN eel “w as r ei ns tat ed w i th back pa y and al l ben efi t s. T he b enefi t s i ncl ude any c a r e e r la dd e r a dv a n c e m e n ts thats he w oul d be ent i t l ed t o, any posi t i on thats he w oul d have be en el i gi bl e t o . . . any opportuni ty f or pr om ot i on. N ow , thatappar ent l y w as notcons i der ed. ” ( E m phas i s a dded. ) T hi s f i ndi ng w as
r ef l ect ed i n t he EA B ’ s det erm i nat i on thatM cN eel ’ s back pa y “s houl d have be en ca l cul at ed
a s D H S -S o c ial W o rk e r, w h o is e n title d to e v e ry a d v a n c e m e n t . . . o ffe re d a n d g ra n ted to D H S -S o c ial W o rk e rs d u rin g th e p e rio d o f tim e fro m N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 9 to a n d th ro u g h A p ril 2004. ” The E A B added thatM cN eel s houl d be “gi ven cons i derat i on forany pr om ot i onal oppor tuni ty t o a C ounty D i r ect or ’ s posi t i on ” i n W i ns t on C ounty. Subse quent l y, t he No v e mb e r2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , o r d e ro f th e c i r c u i tc o u r ts t a t e d th a tth e i s s u e wa s r e ma n d e d t o th e E AB

“ fo r th e m to c lar ify w h a t p ro m o tio n s o r a dv a n c e m e n ts [ M cN eel ] w as aw ar ded, i f any, by j ob t i t l e, an d t he speci fi c pay r at e f r om w hi ch .
. . the bac k pay thats he w as aw ar ded i s t o be
c a lc u la te d .” (E m p h a s is a d d e d .)

### 13

¶17. B eca us e M cN eel w as r ei ns t at ed, thi s C our t f i nds the r eempl oym ent pr ovi s i ons i n t he M iss iss ip p i S tate P e rso n n e l B o a rd P o licy a n d P ro c e d u re s M a n u a l an d th e M iss iss ip p i S tate E m p loy ee H an d b o o k inap p li ca b le. A cc o rdin g to S im p so n ’s let ter, “the term s o f a
r ei ns t at ementw ou l d be deci ded by the appr opr i at e court . ” The hear i ng of f i cer ’ s or i gi nal
or der , af f i r m ed by this C our t , “r ei ns t at ed” M cN eel “t o herpos i t i on w i th back pa y and benef i t s . . . . ” T he natur e of

sai d back pay and bene f i t s w as cl ar i f

i ed by the EA B t o i ncl ude “e v ery ad v an ce m en t . . . o ffered an d g ran ted to D H S -S o cial W o rke rs du ri n g the p eriod o f” M cN eel ’ s w r ongf

ul t erm i nat i on and “c ons i der at i on f orany pr om ot i onal oppor tuni ty t o a C ounty D i r ect or ’ s pos i t i on” i n W i ns t on C ounty. ¶ 1 8
. Un d e rM i s s i s s i p p i E mp l o y e e Ap p e a l s Bo a r d Ad mi n i s tr a t i v e Ru l e 2 4 ( A) , “ [ t ] h e [ E AB]
m a y re in sta te a pr evai l i ng party i nt o empl oym entw i th his o r her r es pondi ng agenc y and
re sto re a ll h is o r h e r e m p loy e e rig h ts a n d

b e n e fit s i ncl udi ng back pa y, m edi cal l eave and p e rso n a l lea v e .” M is s . E m p lo y e e A p p e a ls B o a rd A d m in istra tiv e R u le 2 4 (A ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). T h is C o u rtp rev iou sly h as d eterm ined that the E A B h as th e a u tho ri ty to a w ard p ro m o tio n s a n d to d e c la re a p o s itio n v a c a n t. See Mis s . Empl . Sec. Com m ’n v. C ul

ber t s on , 8 3 2 S o . 2 d 5 1 9 , 5 2 9 -30 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ) (“the E A B clea rl y h ad th e a u tho ri ty to a w ard p rom o ti o n s an d ba ck p ay ”); S h ird v. Miss . S ta te D e

p ’t o f He a lth , 78 5 S o. 2d 27 5, 27 9 (M i ss. 2 0 0 1 ) ( “ [ t ] h e Co u r to f

Ap p e a l s e r r e d i n n o tr e v e r s i n g a n d r e ma n d i n g t h i s c a s e t o th e E AB
w i th di r ect i ons t o decl ar e tw o vaca nci es atthe Ps ychol ogi s tI pos i t i on . . . so thatC um m i ns and Shi r d m ay pr oper l y be cons i der ed f ort he posi t i ons undert he rul es of the St at e Per s onnel B o ard ”); T

ill m o n v. Miss . S ta te D e

p ’t o f He a lth , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 7 , 1 0 2 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ) ( “ [b ]y

### Mis si ss ippiCode Annot at ed S e c ti on 25
- 9- 131 provi des , in pertinent part, that “ [t ] he 14 

### [EA B] may mo difythe actio n o f th e d epartment, ag encyo r in stitutio n but mayn ot in crease the sev erity o f suc ha ctio n o n th e emplo yee. S uchapp ointingauth orityshall p romp tly com ply wi th t he order is sue d as a r es ult

of the a ppea l to the[EAB] .” Mis s. Code Ann. § 25- 9-131 ( Rev. 2006). By contra st , he r Me dic ar e wa ges and tips tot al ed $164, 926.13. 15 

### Betwee n 1999 and 2004, theSoci alSec uri ty c ap rosefrom $72, 600 to $87, 900. 16 

### 14 the pl ai n r eadi ng of

[ M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 25- 9- 131[ ] ] , i ti s eas i l y i nf err ed 14 thatthe EA B has the author i ty t o decl ar e the pos i t i on vaca nt ”)
. T her ef or e, t hi s C our tagr ees
w i th the ci r cui tcourtthat“thi s i s s ue s houl d be r emanded back t o the EA B f orcl ar i f i cat i on of ” w hatpay i ncr eas e( s ) and/ or adv ance m ent ( s ) w er e of f er ed and gr ant ed t o D H S- Soci al W or ker s s i m i l ar l y s i tuat ed t o M cN eel butf orhert erm i nat i on, and det erm i ne w hat , i f any, p a y inc re a se (s) an d /o r ad v a n c e m e n t(s) M c N e e l w o u ld h a v e b e e n e n tit led to re c e iv e . S h o u ld the EA B det erm i ne thatM cN eel i s ent i t l ed t o any s uch pay i ncr eas e( s) and/ or advanc ement ( s ) , the EA B s hal l or derthe M D H S t o compensa t e heracc or di ngl y. I I I . W het her M cN eels houl d be com pensat ed f or havi ng no S oci al Securi t y earni ngs f

rom 2000 t hrough 2003 vi a M D H S “properl y” r e por t i ng he r bac k wage s t o t he Soc i alSe c ur i t y Adm i ni s t r at i on. ¶19. M cN eel r ece i ved her back pay i n a l um p s um i n 2004. A s the Soci al Secur i ty cap f or 2 0 0 4 w a s $ 8 7 ,9 0 0 , M c N e e l did n o t re c e iv e S o c ial S e c u rity c o n trib u tio n s o n th e a m o u n t in
ex ce ss the reo f. O n e e x h ib ito ffered an d ad m itted o v er o b jecti o n d u ri n g B il l M cN ee l’ s 15 t es t i m ony w as t i t l ed “Soci al S ecur i ty C aps . ” B as ed t her eon, he t es t i f i ed t hati n “eac h of the y e a r s . . . f

r o m 1 9 9 9 th r o u g h 2 0 0 3 , h e rs a l a ry wo u l d h a v e b e e n we l l b e l o w th e c a p s . ” He 16 add ed thatthe lum p-sum pay m ent ef fect i vely saved the Stat e $4 , 75 7. 62 i n p ayrol l t axes,
w h ile d e c re a sin g M c N e e l’s “ fu tu re S o c ial [S ]ec u rity
. . . an y w h e re fro m [$ ]40 to $ 5 0 a m o n thE v e n F o rtn e r c o n c e d e d th a t “[i]tw o u ld ap p e a r” tha t th e ab se n c e o f S o c ial S e c u rity 17 earni ngs f

or2000 t hr ough 200 3 w i l l have a negat i ve i m pacton M cN eel w hen s he begi ns col l ect i ng Soci al Secur i ty. 

### 15 w h en sh e starts draw ing S o ci al [ S ] ec u ri ty.” H o w ev er, B il l M cN ee l al so co n ce d ed that there 17
w as “ no otherw ay [th e M D H S ] co u ld h a v e p a id th is S o c ial [S ]e c u rity
. . . . ” (E m p h a sis ad d ed ). B y co n tr ast, M cN ee l h erse lf test if ied th at “[t ] h ere are step s an d p roc ed u res w h ere [th e M D H S ] c a n c o rr e c t th is . T h e s e s te p s a re o u tlin e d in [I R S ] P u b lic a tio n 9 5 7 .” ¶20
. W hil e t he E A B denied M cN eel ’s r equ estforrei m bu rs em ent f or So ci al S ecuri ty t axes, th e c irc u it co u rt fo u n d th a t: th e E A B ’s d e n ial o f M c N e e l’s re q u e st fo r p ro p e r re p o rtin g o f h e r b a c k p a y to the [ SSA ] , w i thoutw r i t t en opi ni on, i s arbi tr ary and capr i ci ous . T he [ I R S] has e sta b lish e d ru les a n d p ro c e d u re s to fo llo w w h e n re p o rtin g b a c k p a y so a s to notdeny s om eone thei r[ S] oci al [ S] ecur i ty benef i t s . M D H S sho ul d f

ol l ow thes e rul es and pr ocedur es . T her ef or e, thi s c our tf

i nds thatthe deci s i on of the E A B thatdeni ed M cN eel ’ s r eques tt o have M D H S pr oper l y r eportherback pay t o t he [ SSA ] s houl d be r ever s ed. ¶21. A ccor di ng t o the M D H S, Soci al Secur i ty t axes “are m and at ed by the [ f ] eder al and [ s ] t at e governm ent . I ti s nota benef i t . ” F ur therm or e, the M D H S m ai nt ai ns thati tf ol l ow ed the St at ew i de Payr ol l and H um an R es our ces Syst em ( “SPA H R S”) pr ogr am i n “ca l cul at i ng M cN eel ’ s Soci al Sec ur i ty t axes ” and “ onl y t ak[ i ng] outt axes f orthe yea rthatthe empl oyee
r e c e i ve d p a ymen t [ , ] w hi c h w as i n 2004. ” See 26 U
. S. C
. § 3121 ( 2008)
. T her ef or e, t he M D H S assert s t hat, b ecause i t s act i on w as al l ow ed u nd er the “p oli ci es, rul es and regu l at i on s” of the St at e Pers on nel Boar d, the EA B “s hal l notal t erthe ac t i on . . . . ” M i s s . E m pl oyee A ppeal s B oar d A dm i ni s tr at i ve R ul e 24( B )
. M cN eel responds that“[ u] nderthe l aw , the [ SSA ] cr edi t s back pa y aw arded un dera s t atut e t o an i ndi vi dual ’ s earni ngs r ecor d i n the p e ri o d (s ) t h e w a g e s s h o u ld o r w o u ld h a v e b e e n p a id .”

### By contra st , “ nonst at utor y bac k pay”is “[ a] paym ent for bac k wage s ne go ti at ed 18 

### between an e mpl oyer

and em ploye e without an award, de te rm inati on or s anc ti on by a c ourt or gove rnm ent

age ncy . . . .” Id
. 16 ¶22. “I f a back pay aw ar d i s not m ade under a s t atut e, the SSA cr edi t s back pay as w ages in the y e a r p a id
. H o w e v e r, w h e n aw a rd e d , th e S S A cre d its b a c k p a y a w a rd e d u n d e r a sta tu te t o the ye ar( s) it sho uld hav e been pa i d. ” I nt er nal R evenue Ser vi ce, h t tp : //www . i r s . g o v /p u b l i c a t i o n s /p 9 5 7 / a r 0 2
. h t ml ( l as tvi s i t ed M ay 27, 2009)
. “B ack pa y
aw ar ded undera s t atut e i s pa ym entby an empl oyerpur s uantt o a n a w ar d, det erm i nat i on or agr eementappr oved or s ancti on ed b y a co urtor gov ernm ent agency res po nsi bl e f orenf or ci ng
a f e d e ra l o r s ta te s ta tu te th a t p ro te c ts a n e m p lo y e e ’s ri g h t to e m p lo y m e n t o r w a g e s .” Id
. 18 St atut ory back pa y i ncl udes paymentbas ed upon l aw s “ thatpr ot ectr i ght s t o empl oym entand
w ages . ” Id
. G iven thes e d efinit ion s, this C o u rt c o n c lu d es th at M cN ee l r ec eive d statu tory b ac k p ay from the M D H S
. A s su ch , this C o u rta g ree s w ith the c ir cu itc o u rtthat “the E A B ’s deni al of M cN eel ’ s r eques tf

orpr operr eport i ng of

herback pa y t o the [ SSA ] , w i thoutw r i t t en opi ni on, i s arbi tr ary and capr i ci ous . ” T he M D H S s houl d prope r l y re por tM cN eel ’ s back pay t o the SSA pur s uantt o I R S Publ i cat i on 957. I V . W he t he r M c N e e ls houl d be c om pe ns at e d f or m e di c ali ns ur anc e and m e di c ale xpe ns e s i nc ur r e d by v i r t ue of he r wrong f

ul t e r m i nat i on. ¶23. T he bac k pay w hi ch M cN eel r ece i ved fr om the M D H S d i d noti ncl ude expens es i ncurr ed dur i ng the per i od of herw r ongf

ul t erm i nat i on forC O B R A and otherm edi cal i ns ur ance cover age, m edi cal expens es , or pr es cr i pt i on drug expens es . A s a s t at e empl oyee, M cN eel di d nothave t o pay f orheri ndi vi dual s t at e hea l th i ns ur ance cover age. T hi s cover age i ncl uded a $350 deduct i bl e, 80% / 20% co- pay, and a pre s cr i pt i on drug pl an. F r om D ece m ber

### 17

1999 t hr ough M ay 2004, how ever , M cN eel w as notprovi ded t hi s em pl oyee bene f i t . F ort he i ni t i al ei ght een mont hs , M cN eel m ai nt ai ned i ns ur ance cover age vi a C O B R A , payi ng i ndi vi dual m onthl y pr emi um s of $170 f r om D ecem ber 19 99 thr ough J une 2000 and $196 f r om J ul y 2000 t hr ough M ay 2001, t ot al i ng $ 3, 34 6. F rom June 2001 thr ough M ay 2003, M cN eel w as s el f

- i ns ur ed, i ncurr i ng no expens es f ori ns ur ance pr emi um s . D ur i ng thi s per i od, M c N e e l as se rte d th a t sh e w o u ld h a v e rec e iv e d b e n e fits to talin g $ 5 ,2 8 1 u n d e r th e sta te h e a lth i ns urance p l an. I n J une 2003, M cN eel pur chas ed hea l th i ns ur ance w i th a deduc t i bl e of $ 2 ,5 0 0 th ro u g h G ilsb a r In su ra n c e . T h e in d iv id u a l m o n th ly p re m iu m s w e re $ 2 7 8 fo r six
m on ths a nd $3 38 f

orthe f i ve months the r e a f

t e r , t ot a l i ng $3 , 35 8. A dd i t i on a l l y, M c N eel pr es ent ed r ece i pt s f

ornear l y $1, 050 i n pr es cr i pt i on drug expens es and $5 78 i n m edi cal expens es f

r om the per i od of

herw r ongf

ul t erm i nat i on. ¶24. T he hea r i ng of

f i cerdet erm i ned that“i f s he had expende d s om e m oney, then I t hi nk
s he w oul d be ent i t l ed t o i t . ” The A ugus t16, 2005, or derof the hea r i ng of

f i cer , af f i r m ed by the “Ful l B oar d O r der ” of the EA B , s peci f

i ed that“ [ a] s a n e m pl oyee of the [ M D H S] , f

r om the dat e of

t erm i nat i on, i ti s i ncumbentthat[ M cN eel ] be pr ovi ded the bene f i tof f r ee medi cal i ns ur ance a nd i f

ne ces s ary t o bef

i nanci al l y r ei m burs ed, i

f pers onalf

unds w er e ex

pended f or
me d i c a li n s u r a n c e , d u r i n gth is p e r i o d o f t i me . ” (E m p h asis ad d ed ). T h e c ir cu itco u rt
a ffirm e d , n o tin g th a t: M i s s i s s i ppi E m pl oyee H andbook, Sec t i on 8, 23- 56 ( J ul y 2005) , l i s t s m edi cal insu ran ce as b en e fit tha t i s av ail ab le t o M issi ssipp i State E m p loy ee s. T h ere i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d t o supportt he f ul l boar d’ s af

f i r m ance of the hear i ng of

f i cer ’ s de ci s i on t o onl

y r ei m burs e M

cN eel f orany per

s onal f unds tha twer e ex

pe nde d f orm e di c al

i ns ur an c e du r i nghe rpe r i od of t e r m i na t i on .

. . . T hi s cour tw i l l tr eatthe EA B ’ s s i l ence on M cN eel ’ s r eques tt o be aw ar ded th e e s tim a te d v a lu e o f h a v in g m e d ic a l in s u ra n c e a s a d e n ia l. McN eel has not

### Acc ording to Bi llMcNe el , the a ct ualpaym ent s t ota le d $6,704. 19 

### 18 pr es ent ed this cour tw i th any author i t y to s uppor therclai m f orthe es t i m at ed val ue of the bene f i tof m edi cal i ns ur ance. Ther ef

or e, this cour tbel i eve s that th e E A B ’s d e c isio n to d e ny McN e e l’s re q u e st fo r th e e stim a tedv a lu e [o f] havi ng m edi cal

i ns ur ance s hould be af

f i r m ed
. (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶ 2 5
. M iss iss ip p i E m p lo y e e A p p e a ls B o a rd A d m in istra tiv e R u le 2 4 (A ) p ro v id e s, in p a rt, th a t “ [t]h e [E A B ] m a

y re in sta te a pr evai l i ng party i nt o empl oym entw i th hi s orher
r es pondi ng agenc y a n dr e s to re a ll h is o r h e r e m p lo y e e rig h ts a n d

b e n e fit s . . . . ” M i ss. E m pl oyee A ppeal s B oar d A dm i ni s tr at i ve R ul e 24( A ) (e m phas i s added)
. T he or i gi nal or der of the hea r i ng of

f i cer , af f i r m ed by thi s C our t , pr ovi ded thatM cN eel is “rei ns t at ed t o her pos i t i on, w i th back pa y a n d b e n e fit s . . . . ” (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). U n d e r “ S e c tio n 8 - B e n e fits of B ei ng a St at e G overnm entE m pl oyee i n M i s s i s s i ppi , ” the M i ssi ssi pp i St at e Em pl oyee H and bo ok i ncludes “T he S t at e and S cho ol Em ployees’ L i fe and H eal th Insurance. ” M i ss. St at e Em pl oyee H andbook, § 8 at23, 43. T hats ubs ect i on pr ovi des thatthe St at e “pa ys the ent i r e hea l th i ns ur ance pr emi um f or al l eli gibl e ac t i ve s t at e empl oyees . ” Id
. at44. A ccor di ngl y, thi s C our tconcl udes thatthe E A B ’ s de ci s i on t o r ei m bur s e M cN eel f orper s onal fu n d s e x p e n d e d o n m e d ica l in su ra n c e d u rin g th e p e ri o d o f h e r w ro n g fu l term in a tio n is
s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence
. See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 2 5 -9-1 3 2 (2) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). 19 M or eover , a s M cN eel pr ovi des no a uthor i ty f orheras s ert i on thats he s houl d be r ei m bur s ed f orthe es t i m at ed val ue of the bene f

i tof m edi cal i ns ur ance , thi s C our tl i kew i s e conc l udes t hat the EA B ’ s deci s i on t o deny s uch r ei m bur s ementa l s o i s s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence
.

### 19

¶2 6. A ddi t i on a l l y, h oweve r , thi s Courtn ot e s tha t“[ b] enef i t s of t he St at e and School E m p loy ee s’ L if

e a n d H ea lth insu ran ce inclu d e . . . : ( 1 ) In-N etw o rk a n d O u t- o f-N etw o rk
cover age[ , ]
. . . ( 6) Pr es cr i pt i on D rug Pl an. ” M i ss . St at e Em pl oyee H andbook, § 8 at44. M c N e e l p ro v id e d d o c u m e n tatio n o f $ 1 ,0 5 0 in p re sc rip tio n d ru g e x p e n se s a n d $ 5 7 8 in
m edi cal expens es f

r om the per i od of

herw r ongf

ul t erm i nat i on. T he hea r i ng of f i cers t at ed that“i f s he had e xpended s om e money, then I thi nk s he w oul d be ent i t l ed t o i t . ” A s s uch, thi s C our tf

i nds thatr ei m bur s ementof the document ed presc r i pt i on drug and medi cal
e x p e n se s w a s a b e n e fit to w h ich M c N e e l w a s e n title d . T h e re fo re , this C o u rt re m a n d s th is
ca se to the E A B to d eterm ine if, b u t f o r he r w ron g ful t erm in ati o n , an y o f M cN ee l’ s document ed pr es cr i pt i on drug and m edi cal expens es w oul d have been pai d by “The St at e and S c h o o l Em p l o y e e s ’ Li f

e a n d He a l th I n s u r a n c e ” p l a n . I f s o , th e E AB s h a l l o r d e rth e M DHS t o compensa t e herf

ors ame. V . W he t he r M c N e e l s houl d be c om pe ns at e d f or c ont i nui ng pr of e s s i ona l e duc at i on e xpe ns e s i nc ur r e d by v i r t ue of he r wrong f

ul t e r m i nat i on. ¶27. T he back pay w hi ch M cN eel r ece i ved f rom t he M D H S di d not i ncl ude cont i nui ng pr of es s i onal educa t i on expens es i ncurr ed by M cN eel dur i ng the per i od of hert erm i nat i on. M cN eel t est i fi ed thatpri or t o h er t erm i nati on she w as r eim b u rsed for s uch exp enses, i ncl udi ng tui t i on, m i l eage , hot el s , and m eal s. S he adde d thats i nce he rr ei ns t at ement , t he M D H S h a s re im b u rse d h e r fo r m ilea g e a sso ciated w ith att en d ing co n fere n c e s a n d “ [t] h e S tate actual l y t ook car e of

the hot el expens es . . . . ” M cN eel pr es ent ed evi dence thatt he cont i nui ng pr of

es s i onal educa t i on expens es s he i ncurr ed dur i ng the per i od of he rt erm i nat i on t ot al ed $2, 031.

### 20

¶2 8
. C o n v erse ly, ac co rdin g to M an g o ld, “[i ] f it ’s d u ti es a n d re sp o n sibil it ies that they ’re
r e q u i r e d t o k n o w o rt o i m p r o v e th e i rs k i l l s i n o r d e rt o p e r f o r m th e i rj o b , th e n [ t h e M DHS wi l l ] r e i mb u r s e th e m f

o rth o s e e x p e n s e s . ” Ho we v e r , a s t o e x p e n s e s i n c u rr e d b y M DHS
s oci al w or ker s t o m eet li censi ng r equi r ement s , M angol d t es t i f i ed thatthe M D H S does not
r ei m bur s e. O cca s i onal l y, l i m i t ed s chol ar s hi p opportuni t i es w er e avai l abl e t o M D H S soc i al
w or ker s . H ow ever , i n the abs ence of s uch s chol ar s hi ps , m ul t i pl e M D H S em pl oyees t es t i f i ed thatcont i nui ng pr of

es s i on al ed ucat i on expens es , i ncl udi ng tui t i on, m i l eage , and hot el expens es , w er e the r es pons i bi l i ty of the empl oyee. A s O ’ B ryantt es t i f i ed, “[ t ] hey’ r e al l ow ed tim e a w a y fr o m th e irjo b , b u t th e y g e t n o c o m p e n s a tio n o r r e im b u rs e m e n t.” ¶29. T he EA B f

ound that“[ c] ont i nui ng pr of es s i onal educa t i on i s nei thera par tof back pay
ora benef

i t , and t hi s re ques ti s deni ed .
. . . ” The ci r cui tcourtaf f i r m ed, f i ndi ng “s ubs t ant i al
e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd to s u p p o rt th is d e n ia l.” ¶ 3 0
. A b s e n t e x e m p tio n , s o c ia l w o rk e rs a re re q u ir e d to m a in ta in th e iro w n lic e n s e s . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 73- 53- 7 ( R ev. 2008)
. T he or i gi nal or derof the hea r i ng of

f i cer , af f i r m ed by thi s Court , pr ovi ded thatM cN eel i s “r ei ns t at ed t o herpos i t i on, w i th back pa y a n d b e n e fit s

. . . . ” ( E m phas i s added. ) R ei m bur s ementf orcont i nui ng pr of

es s i onal educat i on expens es is n o t am o n g the b e n e fits li ste d in M iss iss ip p i E m p lo y e e A p p e a ls B o a rd A d m in istra tiv e R u le 24( A ) orthe M i s s i s s i ppi St at e E m pl oyee H andbook. A ddi t i onal l y, the hear i ng of f i cerw as pr es ent ed w i th conf

l i ct i ng t es t i m ony r egar di ng the pr ovi s i on of cont i nu i ng pr of

es s i onal educa t i on expens es by the M D H S. A ccor di ngl y, thi s Courtcannotf i nd thatthe EA B ’ s deni al of M cN eel ’ s r eques tf

orcont i nui ng pr of

es s i onal educa t i on expense s w as uns uppor t ed by
s ubs t ant i al evi dence , arbi tr ary orcapr i ci ous , ori n vi ol at i on of M cN eel ’ s s t atut or y or

### Bil l McNee l a dded that “during t he tim e s he was unem

ploye d we ha d to bor

row 20 

### moni es . . . t o com

pens at e f or he r not having her

job and . . . wehad to pay interest to our le nde r s and

b ank s . ” Ad di t i on a l ly, F or tne r t e s t i f i e d that thel at e - depo s i t e d PERS contribution s inclu dedinterest. B ill McN eel asked“why sh ou ld P ER S g et interest in pen alties andwe n ot g et it in th e same case[?]” 21 c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 2 5 -9-1 3 2 (2) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). T h ere fore , this C o u rt
c o n c lu d e s th a t th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. V I. W h eth er M cN ee l sh o u ld re ce ive in ter est o n th e b a ck p a y o w ed to he r by t he M D H S. ¶31
. T he back pay w hich M cN eel recei ved fr om the M D H S did n o t incl ud e the int eres t
w h ich a cc rue d d u ri n g the p erio d o f h e r w ron g ful t erm ination an d p o st- jud g m en t. In M cN eel ’ s 1999 “N ot i ce of A ppeal B ef

or e the M i s s i s s i ppi E m ployee A ppeal s B oar d, ” her “statem en t of reli ef req u ested ” d id n o t i n clud e a d em an d for interest. T h rou g h o u t th at en ti re
or i gi nal appea l , bef

or e t he hear i ng off

i cer , t he f

ul l boar d of the E A B , the ci r cui tcourt , and this C o u rt , M cN ee l nev er re q u ested interes t. N eith er th e o ri g inal o rde r o f the h ea ri n g o ffi ce r,
n o r th e a ffi rm ing o p inion s o f th e fu ll b o ard o f th e E A B , the c ir cu itco u rt , o r th is C o u rt, referr ed to i nter est . A m on g the exh i bit s off ered and adm i t t ed d uri ng B i l l M cN ee l’ s t es t i m ony i n M cN eel ’ s sec ond appea l , pr es ent l y bef or e thi s C our t , w as the “Cal cul at i on of I nt er es ton B ack Pay A w ar d. ” The cal cul at i ons the r e i n p r ov i de thatM cN eel ’ s i nt er es tt ot al ed $29, 762. 12. A ccor di ng t o Bi l l M cN eel , the M D H S “l os te very a ppeal pr oces s f r om al l t he
w ay l as tt i m e. T hey .
. . ha d no i ncent i ve w hat s oevert o r es ol ve the i s s ues f r om 1999. A nd thi s thi ng di d dr ag on unt i l A pr i l of 2004 and, a l s o, the [ s ] t at e l aw I thi nk pr ovi des thatthey
s h o u ld p a y in te re s t.” 20

### 22

¶ 3 2
. T h e E A B fo u n d th a t M c N e e l “is n o t en tit led to in ter e st o n h e r b a c k p a y ; the paym ent of i nt er es tas s et

out i n Se ct i on 75- 17- 1 of

the Mis s is s i

ppiCode of

1972, A nnotat ed, does not appl y to the Stat e o[

r ] pol i t i cal

s ubdi vis i ons . ” (Em ph asi s add ed. ) T he ci rcuit cou rt di s agr eed, f

i ndi ng t hatthi s C our t“has hel d thatabs ents t atut ory a uthor i ty . . . pr ohi bi t i ng t he S tate o f M iss iss ip p i an d its p o lit ica l su b d iv isio n s fr o m p a y in g in ter e st, th e S tate a n d its pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i ons s hal l be l i abl e f ors uch payment
. ” See Cit y of Jacks on v. W

il liam s on , 740 So. 2d 818, 820- 23 ( M i ss. 1 999). C oncl udi ng thatthe M D H S f ai l ed t o ci t e any s uch pr ohi bi t ory s t atut ory author i ty or ca s e l aw , t he ci r cui tcour tfound thatt he EA B had err ed as a mat t erof

l aw . T he ci r cui tcour tt hen det erm i ned t hatM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 75- 17- 7 “ s eems cl ear. . . thatthe L egi s l atur e i nt ended f orthe j udge w ho he ar s the compl ai nt t o be the one thatde ci des i nt er es ti s s ues . ” D eemi ng he ar i ng of f i cer s t o be admi ni s tr at i ve l aw j udges , the ci r cui tcourtf ound “they w oul d qual i f y as j udges f

orpurpos es of

M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 75-17- 7. ” Ther ef or e, r egar di ng pr ej udgm enti nt er es t , the ci r cui tcourtr ever s ed and r emanded f

ora det erm i nat i on by the hea r i ng of f i cerof w hethersuch an a w ar d w as pr operand, i f

s o, the appr opr i at e r at e. T he ci r cui tcour tfurtherdeci ded thatpos t - j udgm ent i nt er es t“i s a s t at utory r i ght ” underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 75- 17- 7, and
r ever s ed and r emanded f ora de t erm i nat i on of

the pos t - j udgm enti nt er es tr at e w hi ch M cN eel
s hal l r ece i ve on herback pa y aw ar d. ¶33. T he M D H S now ar gues thatint eres tis n ot a be nefi tcit ed i n ei ther M i s s i s s i ppi E m pl oy ee A pp eal s B oar d A dm i ni s tr at i ve R ul e 24( A ) orthe M i s s i s s i ppi St at e Em pl oyee H andbook. T her ef

or e, acc or ding to the M D H S, the i m pos i t i on of i nt er es ton the bac k pay
aw ar d i s i m perm i s s i bl e beca us e the EA B “may notal t ercompensa t i on pai d t o an empl oyee

### 23

i f the age ncy f

ol l ow ed rul es and r egul at i ons of the St at e Per s onnel B oar d. ” See M i ss. E m p lo y e e A p p e a ls B o a rd A d m in istra tiv e R u le 2 4 (B ). R e itera tin g th e p o sitio n o f th e c irc u it
co u rt , M cN ee l r esp o n d s tha t “ab sen t partic u lar statutory au tho ri ty from the L eg isl ature p ro h ib iti n g th e S tate . . . an d its p o lit ica l su b d iv isio n s fr o m p a y in g in ter e st, th e S tate a n d its pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i ons s hal l be l i abl e f orsuch payment
. ” See W il liam s on , 740 So. 2d at820- 23. M cN eel adds that“[ t ] he St at e and i t s pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i ons ar e notexcl uded i n t he
w o rd in g o f [M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 7 5 -1 7 -7 ]. If a p a rty is n o t sp e c if ic a lly e x c lu d e d , it
m u s t b e in c lu d e d .” ¶34. T hi s C our t f

i nds that the E A B err ed i n s t at i ng that “the payment of i nt er es t as s etout in S e c tio n 7 5 -1 7 -1 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e o f 1 9 7 2 , A n n o tate d , d o e s n o t ap p ly to th e S tate o[ r ] pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i ons . ” I n W il liam s on , this C o u rt sta ted th a t: th e sp e c ific la n g u a g e o f R u le 3 7 o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f A p p e llate Pr ocedur e s hi f

t s the bur den t o the St at e and i t s pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on t o pr ovi de exp l i ci tst atutory ex cepti on s t o the new gen eral rul e t hat the S t at e and [ i t s] pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i ons m us tpay the s ame cos t s and i nt er es tas i ndi vi dual or corporat e app el l ants w ho l ose t heirapp eal s. W il liam s on , 740 So. 2d at822-23. T he E A B w as author i zed t o i m pos e i nt er es ton the bac kp a y a w a rd a g a in st th e M D H S
. F u rth e rm o re , th is C o u rt ag re e s w ith the c irc u it co u rt th a t p o stj udgm enti nt er es ti n the ca s e s ub j udi ce i s m andat ed by M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 75 -17-7. T hat s ect i on provides: [ a] l l j ud gm ents or decrees found ed on any sal e or con tracts hall bear i nter est atthe s ame r at e as the contr actevi denci ng the debton w hi ch t he j udgm entor d e c re e w a s re n d e re d
. A l lotherj udgm ent s s hal lbeari nt er es tata perannum r at e s et by the j udge hear i ng the com plai ntf r om a dat e d et erm i ned by s uch j udge to be f

ai rbuti n no eve ntpr i ort o the f i l i ng of the com plai nt .

### 24

M iss . C o d e A n n . § 7 5 -1 7 -7 (R e v . 2 0 0 0 ) (e m p h a sis ad d e d ). T h is C o u rt h a s sta ted tha t “p o stj udgm enti nt er es ti s a s t atut ory r i ght
. . . . ” Miss . D e p ’t o f Me n ta l H

e a lth v. H

a ll , 936 So. 2d 917, 929 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng U .S . Fide lit y & G u a r. Co . v. E sta te o f Fra n c is e

x re l. Fra n c is , 825 So. 2d 38, 50 ( M i s s . 2002) )
. T her ef or e, “[ d] ue t o the mandat ory natur e of § 75- 17- 7 a nd be caus e publ i c pol i cy heavi l y f avor s pos t -

j udgm enti nt er es t , ” H

a ll , 936 So. 2d at 9 3 0 , this C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t M c N e e l is e n tit led to p o st-ju d g m e n t in ter e st. ¶35. H ow ever , M cN eel neverre ques t ed pr ej udgm ent i nt er es tatany poi nti n t he or i gi nal appea l , and nei therthe or i gi nal or derof the hea r i ng of

f i cer , nort he af

f i r m i ng opi ni ons of

t he f ul l boar d of the E A B , t he ci r cui tcour t , or thi s C our t , r ef err ed t o i nt er es t . “Forpr ej udgm ent i nt er es tt o be a w ar ded, the party mustmake a pr operde m and f orthe i nt er es ti n the pl eadi ngs

. . . . ” Moel

lerv. A m . G uar. and L iab. I ns. Co. , 812 So. 2d 953, 958 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng P r ef er r ed R is k Mut

. I ns. Co. v. Johnson , 730 So. 2d 574, 577 ( M i s s . 1998) )
. A ddi t i onal l y, th is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: [a]c c o rd in g to th e m a n d a te r u le, . . . a m a n d a te is s u e d b y th is C o u rt “ ‘is bi ndi ng on the tr i al courton r emand, unl es s the case com es underone of the e xc e pt i on s t o the l a w o f the c a s e d oc t r i ne. ’ ” [Moel ler , 812 So. 2d at960 ( quot i ng Sim

ps on v. State Farm Fir e & Cas . Co. , 564 So. 2d 1374, 1377 ( M i s s . 1990) ) ]
. T hes e exc ept i on s i ncl ude “‘ m at er i al change s i n evi dence , pl eadi ngs orf

i ndi ngs , ’ ” Moell

er , 812 So. 2d at960 ( quot i ng Co n t’l Turpe ntine & Rosin Co. v. G ul f N aval S tores Co. , 244 M i s s . 465, 480, 142 So. 2d 200, 207 ( 1962) ) , and “the need f ort he C our tt o ‘de partf

r om i t s f or m er d e c is io n ’ ‘ a ft e r m a tu re c o n s id e ra tio n ’ s o th a t ‘ u n ju s t r e s u lts ’ w ill n o t o c c u r.” Moel ler , 812 So. 2d at961 ( quot i ng Bre werv. Bro wning , 115 M i s s . 358, 364, 7 6 S o . 2 6 7 , 2 6 9 (19 1 7 )). P ub. E m pl . R et . Sys . v. Fr eem an , 868 So. 2d 327, 330 ( M i s s . 2004)
. A s the bas i s f ort he E A B ’ s deni al of

i nt er es ton M cN eel ’ s back pay w as l egal l y err oneous, thi s C our tr emands f orf ur thercons i der at i on. O n r emand, the EA B , act i ng pur s uantt o M i ssi ssi ppi C ode

### T h is C o urt ad ds th at Mississip pi C od e Sectio n 1 1-3 -23 is inap plicab le in th e case 21 

### sub judic e . Se ction 11- 3-23 provide d for a m andator

y penalt y for purs uing an unsuc ce ss ful app eal in cases o f un con ditio nal affirman ces, stating , in p ertinent part, th at: [i ] n ca sethejudgm ent or dec re e of

thecourt be low beaf

firm ed,
. . . the Supre meCourt

s hal l re nder

j udgme nt aga ins t theappe ll ant for dam age s, at

the rateof f if te en pe rc ent

(15%) , a s f

oll ows: If thejudgm ent

or de cr eeaf

firm ed be fo r a sum o f mon ey, th e damag es shall b e up onsuchsum. Miss. Co de Ann. § 1 1-3 -23 (Rev . 20 02 ). Seeals o Pri me RX, LLC v. McKendree, Inc . , 917 So. 2d 791, 798 (Mi ss . 2005) (c iting Green lee v. Mitch ell, 607 So. 2d 97, 112 (Mi ss . 1992) (“ [t ] he s tatut ory pe nalty a ppli es only t o uncondi ti onalaf firm anc es .” ). Sec ti on 11-3- 23, howeve r, was repea le d by HouseBil l 19, 2002 Mis si ss ippi L aws Third Extra Se ss ion Ch apter 4 (H.B . 19 ) wh ich w as effective “f ro m an d after January1, 2 00 3, an d sh all app ly to all cau ses o

f actio n filed

on or a fter tha t da te .”(Em

phas is adde d.) Seeals o Superior Car Ren tal, In c. v. Ro berts , 871 So. 2d 1286, 1288 ( Mis s. 2004) ( “the r epe alof Mis s. Code Ann. § 11-3- 23 appl ie s t o al l ca se s comme nce d in a tria l c ourt

on or a ft er

Januar y 1, 2003. ”) . The pre s e nt c aus e of a c t i on , Ca

us e Numbe r

20 07
- CC
- 21 89
- SC T, c omm e nce d w i th theEA B fol lowing thi s Cour

t’ s de ci si on in Ca

useNumbe r 2002- CC-1 948-SCT on Apri l 8, 2004. Whil e thepres ent

c aus e of ac ti on i s cl early int er re late d with that previ ous c aus e of ac ti on, un der whichSectio n 1 1-3 -23 wo uldapp ly, th e plainlang u ag e o f the rep eal foreclo ses its appl ic ation in Caus e Num ber 2007-CC- 2189-SCT. However, this Court note s that McNee l may bee nti tl ed to theretroa ctivea ppli cati on of

Se ction 11- 3-23 in Caus e Num ber2002-CC1948-SCT, as thepena lt

y is mandat or

y and the a ff

ir mance s ther ein wer e unc onditiona l. That said, M cNeel h as nev er filed any mo tionto amen d th at prio r mand ate of th is Co urt. 25 A nnot at ed Sect i on 75- 17- 7, s hal l det erm i ne the pos t - j udgm enti nt er es tr at e t o w hi ch M cN eel i s e nt i t l ed. A s t o pr ej udgm enti nt er es t , how ever , thi s Courtf i nds thata ny s uch aw ar d by t he E A B i s f or ecl os ed by bot h M cN eel ’ s w ai verof s uch cl ai m and the mandat e rul e. See id .; 21 Moel ler , 812 So. 2d at958. V I I . W he t he r M c N e e l s houl d be c om pe ns at e d f or l e ga l f e e s i nc ur r e d by vi r t ue of he r wrong f

ul t e r m i nat i on. ¶ 3 6
. M c N e e l so u g h t to b e re im b u rse d fo r “ a tto rn e y fe e s a n d e x p e n se s in c o n n e c tio n w ith [ her ] appea l s ” t ot al i ng $26, 39 4. 88 ( i ncl udi ng i nt er es t )
. I n denyi ng M cN eel ’ s r eques t , t he E A B f ound that“[ t ] he EA B ’ s j ur i s di ct i on i s s etoutby s t atut e; the s t atut e does notpr ovi de

### 26

au tho ri ty to a w ard co u rtco st[ s] , o u t of p o ck et co sts, o r att o rne y fee s . . . . ” T h e c ir cu itco u rt aff i rm ed, determ i ning t hat “[ t ] he [EA B ] do es not have the au tho ri ty to aw ard at t orneys’ fe e s .” ¶37. I n C ul

ber t s on , this C o u rt stat ed that “[t ] h e E A B is a cre ature o f statu te, an d n o w h ere i n the s t atut ory s cheme i s the EA B empow er ed t o aw ar d att orneys ’ f ees . ” C ul

ber t s on , 832 S o . 2 d a t 5 3 0
. S p e c if

ic a lly , “ th e E A B h a s o n ly lim ite d a u th o ri ty u n d e r M is s . C o d e A n n . § 25- 9- 131 ( 1999) , and .
. . the aw ar di ng of att orneys ’ fees is n otone of i t s enumer at ed po w e r s . ” Id
. at 532. B as ed ther eon, thi s C our tcannotf i nd thatthe EA B ’ s deni al of M cN eel ’ s r eques tf

orr ei m bur s ementof

l egal fe es w as unsupport ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence , a rb itr a ry o r c a p ri c io u s , o r i n v io la tio n o f M c N e e l’ s s ta tu to ry o rc o n s ti tu tio n a l r ig h ts . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 25- 9- 132( 2) ( R ev. 2006)
. T her ef or e, thi s C our tconcl udes thatthi s i s s ue is w ith o u t m e rit. V I I I . W hether M cN eels houl d be com pensat ed f or l egal f

ees i ncurred rega rd i n g h er u n em p l oy m en t ben efi ts . ¶38. M cN eel a r gues that“[ t ] he netamount of the unempl oym entbenef i t s af t erthe att or ney f ees of havi ng re pr es ent at i on atthe appe al ar e deduc t ed w oul d be $2, 440. 00 ( 4, 940. 00 m i nus 2 ,5 0 0 .0 0 ).” S h e s e e k s r e im b u rs e m e n t f o r t h e s e le g a l f

e e s . A s in Is s u e V II ., supra , the M D H S resp o n d s tha t suc h relief is fo rec lose d b ec au se th e E A B is no t auth o ri ze d to aw ard at t orneys’ f

ees. ¶3 9. T he ci r cui tcour tchar a c t e r i z e d thi s r e qu e s ta s “ no thi ng mor e tha n a r eques t f or att orneys ’ f

ees . . . . O bt ai ni ng an att orney t o r epr es entherbef or e the M i s s i s s i ppi E m pl oym entSecur i ty C om m i s s i on w as ent i r el y M cN eel ’ s choi ce. ” A s the EA B l acks

### Bil l McNee l not ed that the seca lc ulati ons inc lude d the pre suppos ition of “m ar ri ed 22 

### filingseparate b ecause th is do es no t inclu de any o f my in come.” 27 a u th o ri ty to a w a rd a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s , s ee Is s u e V II ., supra , the c ir cu itc o u rta ffi rm ed the E A B ’s d en ial of M cN ee l’ s req u est. T h is C o u rtag ree s an d , th ere fore , can n o t fi n d th at th e E A B ’s deni al of

M cN eel ’ s reques tf

orr ei m bur s ementof

l egal f ees as s oci at ed w i th her unempl oym entbenef

i t s w as uns uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence , arbi tr ary or c apr i ci ous , or in v io la tio n o f M c N e e l’ s s ta tu to ry o r c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . See M i s s . C od e A nn. § 25- 9- 1 3 2 (2 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e re fo re , this C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I X . W h e t h e r Mc N e e l s h o u l d b e c o mp e n s a t e d f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n c o me t ax at i on i nc ur r e d by v i r t ue of he r wrong f

ul t e r m i nat i on. ¶40. M cN eel pr es ent ed evi dence at the hear i ng that the l um p-s um payment s he r ece i ved f r om the M D H S pl ace d heri n a mar kedl y hi ghert ax br acke tthan i f s he had be en pai d i n t he i nd i vidual years bet w een 19 99 an d 2 00 4. In f act , according t o B i l l M cN eel ’s cal culat i on s, 22 the di f f er ence amount ed t o i ncr eas ed f eder al and s t at e i ncome t ax of $24, 866. ¶ 4 1
. T h e E A B d e ter m in e d th a t M c N e e l “ w a s n o t e n tit led to a n y re im b u rse m e n t . . . d u e to the s t at e and f

eder al t axes on the bac k pay l um p s um payment . ” The ci r cui tcourtaf f i r m ed, f i ndi ng thatM cN eel “has notci t ed any r el evantaut hor i ty thatw oul d l ead thi s courtt o bel i eve h e r c o n stitu tio n a l o r sta tu to ry rig h ts w e re v io late d b y th e fu ll b o a rd ’s d e n ial o f th is
re im b u rs e m e n t.” ¶ 4 2
. S im ila r to its a rg u m e n t in Is s u e II I., supra , the M D H S m ai nt ai ns that i t abi ded by t he SPA R H S pr ogr am i n cal cul at i ng M cN eel ’ s back pa y, and “a n empl oyee i s t axed by the yea r thatshe m ay r ece i ve paymentf r om herempl oyer . ” See 2 6 U. S
. C. § 3 1 2 1 ( 2 0 0 8 )
. As

### 28

“r ei m bur s ementf

ori ncome t axes i s notr el i ef thatcan be aw ar ded underR ul e 24( A ) [ , ] ” the M D H S a ss e rts th a t it s a llo w a b le a c tio n u n d e r th e “ p o licie s, ru les a n d re g u latio n s” o f th e S tate P erso n n el B o ard sh o u ld n o t be a lt ere d b y the E A B
. M iss
. E m p loy ee A p p ea ls B o ard A d m inistrati v e R u le 24 (B )). ¶43. A ccor di ng t o the I R S, “f or i ncome t ax purpos es , the I R S tr eat s al l back pay as w ages in th e y e a r p a id .” I n te r n a l R e v e n u e S e rv ic e , h ttp : //www . i r s . g o v /p u b l i c a t i o n s /p 9 5 7 / a r 0 2
. h tml (l ast v isi ted M ay 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 ) (em p h asis a d d ed ). A s su ch , this C o u rtc an n o t fi n d tha t th e E A B ’s deni al of M cN eel ’s r eques tf

ori ncome- t ax r ei m bur s ementw as uns uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence , arbi tr ary orcapr i ci ous , ori n vi ol at i on o f M cN eel ’ s s t atut ory orcons t i tut i onal ri g h ts . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 25- 9- 132( 2) (Rev. 2006). T her ef or e, thi s C our tconcl udes t hat th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. X . W het her al l m oni es ow ed t o M cN eels houl d be cal cul at ed by a capabl e acc ounti ng f

i rm or t he M i s s i s s i ppi St at e A udi t or’ s O f f i ce. ¶44. T he ci r cui t court deemed the E A B ’ s s i l ence on thi s i s s ue t o cons t i tut e a deni al , t hen fo u n d th a t M c N e e l “ p re se n ted n o a u th o rity in s u p p o rt o f h e r p ro p o sitio n . . . [t ]he re fo re , this
c o u rt b e lie v e s th e fu ll b o a rd ’s d e n ia l s h o u ld b e a ff ir m e d .” ¶ 4 5
. O n c ro ss -a p p e a l, M c N e e l ag a in p re se n ts n o a u th o ri ty in s u p p o rt o f h e r a rg u m e n t,
m e re ly m a in tain in g th a t: [t] h is is a v e ry c o m p lex c a se a n d th e a w a rd m u st b e b ro k e n d o w n in to c a te g o ri e s a n d s ig n e d o ff b y th e c o u rt b e fo re th e [S S A ] c a n p ro c e s s it. . . . M D H S does notha ve the expert i s e t o c al cul at e thes e amount s c orr ect l y a nd the b u rd e n o f c a lcu latin g th e se a m o u n ts s h o u ld n o t fa ll o n M c N e e l. M or eover , the M D H S corr ect l y not es t hatby ut i l i zi ng t he SP A H R S pr ogr am i n cal cul at i ng M cN eel ’ s back pa y, they “a ct ed i n acc or dance w i th the publ i s hed pol i ci es , rul es and

### 29

reg u l at i on s of the S t at e P ers on nel B oard .
. . . ” M i ss. E m ployee A pp eal s B o ard A d m in istrati v e R u le 24 (B ). A s su ch , b ec au se th e E A B ’s ac ti o n “is all o w ed u n d er s a id p o lic ie s , ru le s a n d re g u la tio n s , th e [E A B ] s hal lnot al t erthe act i on taken by the agenc y . . .

. ” Id
. ( emphasi s added)
. Si nce the EA B ’ s deni al of M cN eel ’ s r eques tf

oran i ndepende nt
c a lcu latio n w a s s u p p o rte d b y su b sta n tial e v id e n c e , n o t ar b itrar y o r c a p ric io u s, a n d n o t in
v io la tio n o f M c N e e l’ s sta tu to ry o r c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts , s ee M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 25- 9- 1 3 2 (2 ), th is C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶4 6. B as ed upon t he af or ement i on e d a na l ys i s , thi s Cour ta f f i r ms the EA B’ s de ni al of M cN eel ’ s r eques tf

ortr avel r ei m bur s ementa ndpe r s on a l
- l e a ve cr edi t , cont i nui ng pr of es s i onal educa t i on expens es , r ei m bur s ementof l egal f ees ( i ncl udi ng thos e as soci at ed w i th her unempl oym entbenef

i t s ) , r ei m bur s ementf

oraddi t i onal i ncome t axat i on, and an i ndepende nt cal culat i on of the m on i es ow ed. T his C ou rtfur ther af fi rm s the E A B ’s decis i on t o rei m bu rs e M cN eel f

orper s onal f

unds expended on m edi cal i ns ur ance dur i ng the per i od of herw r ongf

ul t erm i nat i on. ¶ 4 7
. T h is C o u rt re v e rse s th e E A B ’s d e c isio n re g a rd in g re p o rtin g o f M c N e e l’s b a c k p a y to the Soci al Secur i ty A dm i ni s tr at i on. T he M D H S i s r equi r ed t o pr oper l y r eportM cN eel ’ s back pay t o the SSA pur s uantt o I R S Publ i cat i on 957. Fur therm or e, thi s C our tr ever s es and
r emands t o the EA B on the i s s ue of post
- j udgm enti nt er es t . O n r emand, the EA B , act i ng p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 7 5 -1 7 -7 , sh a ll d e term ine th e p o st- jud g m en t i n terest ra te to w h ic h M c N e e l is e n tit led . A s to p re ju d g m e n t in ter e st, a n y su c h a w a rd b y th e E A B is f or ecl os ed both by M cN eel ’ s w ai verof s uch cl ai m a nd by the mandat e rul e. A ddi t i onal l y,

### 30

on re m and, t he E A B shal l cl ar i f y w hatpay i ncr eas e( s ) and/ oradvance m ent ( s ) w er e of f er ed and gr ant ed t o D H S- Soci al W or ker s s i m i l ar l y s i tuat ed t o M cN eel butforhert erm i nat i on, and det erm i ne w hat , i f

any, s uch pay i ncr eas e( s ) an d/ ora dv a nc e ment ( s ) M c N e e l w ou l d h a ve bee n ent i t l ed t o r ece i ve. Shoul d the EA B det erm i ne thatM cN eel i s ent i t l ed t o any s uch pay i ncr eas e( s ) and/ oradvanc ement ( s ) , the EA B s hal l or derthe M D H S t o compensat e her
acc or di ngl y. Fi nal l y, the EA B s hal l r endera r ei m bur s ementdet erm i nat i on r egar di ng
w hether , butf

orherw r ongf

ul t erm i nat i on, a ny of

M cN eel ’ s document ed pr es cr i pt i on drug and medi cal expens es w oul d have be en pai d by “The St at e and School E m pl oyees ’ L i f e and H eal th I ns ur ance ” pl an. I f s o, the EA B s hal l or derthe M D H S t o compensa t e herf ors ame. ¶48. AFF I RM ED I N PART; REVERSED AND REM AND ED I N PART. W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AND GRAV ES , P . J J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR.