I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 0 6 3 0 - CO A

EL I J AH S TR ONG AP P EL LA NT
v. NO RTH M I S S I S S I PP I CENTER FOR H I GH ER ED UCAT I ONAL ADVAN CE M EN T, I NC. AND W AR RE N E . STAM PS APP ELLEE S

D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 25/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J AM ES T. KI TCHE NS J R. CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: CLAY COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: J I M W AI DE RO N L. W O O D RU FF ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEES : RA ND OLPH W ALK ER NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - T OR T S
- OT HE R T HAN P E RS ONAL I NJ UR Y & P RO P E RT Y DAMAGE T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: GR ANT E D AP P E L L E E S ’ M OT I ON F OR S UM M AR Y J UDGMENT D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D – 09/ 23/ 2014 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 I R V I N G , P . J. , M A X W E L L A N D JA M E S, JJ. I RVI NG , P. J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. E lij a h S tro n g fi le d a c o m p lain t in th e C lay C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt a g a in st th e N o rth M i ss i s s i ppi C ent erf

orH i gherE ducat i onal A dvance m ent( C ent er ) and W arr en St am ps, al l egi ng thatthe C ent erw r ongf ul l y di s char ged hi m f

r om hi s empl oym entdut i es , and that S t am ps m al i ci ou sl y int erf ered w i th h i s em ploym ent. T he C enterand St am ps ( C enter , un l ess the c o n text d ict ates o therw ise) fi led a m o ti o n for su m m ary jud g m en t, w h ich th e c ir cu itco u rt gr ant ed. Feel i ng aggr i eved, St r ong appea l s and ar gues thatthe ci r cui tc our terr ed i n gr ant i ng the C ent er ’ s m ot i on.

### 2

¶2
. B e c a u se S tr o n g h as fail ed to sh o w the e x ist en ce o f a g en u ine issue o f m aterial fac t,
w e a ffi rm the ju d g m en t of th e c ir cu itg ran ti n g su m m ary jud g m en t t o the C en ter. FACTS ¶3
. Str on g w a s e mpl oy e d a s a p r oj e c ts pe c i a l i s ta tthe Cen t e r . H i s cont r actw i t h t he C ent erprovi ded t hathi s em pl oym entbegan on Sept ember1, 2009, and ende d on A ugus t31, 2 0 1 0
. S tr o n g claim s tha t on A u g u st 12 , 2 0 1 0 , h e e x p resse d to S tam p s, h is direct sup erv isor, S tr o n g ’ s c o n c e r n t h a tS t a mp s wa s mi s a p p r o p r i a t i n g th e Ce n t e r ’ s f e d e r a l g r a n tmo n e y . On A u g u st 2 7 , 2 0 1 0 , D r. H e n ry B e rry , the C e n ter ’s C E O , w ro te S tro n g a le tter in fo rm in g h im thatonce hi s contr actexpi r ed on A ugus t31, 2010, t he C ent erw oul d notof f erhi m another
c o n tra c t. ¶4. St r ong’ s compl ai ntal l eged thatther e w as no b asi s forB erry t o ref use t o r enew St r ong’ s contr act , and thatSt amps had i nf l uence d B erry’ s deci s i on. M or e s peci f i cal l y, St rong ar gued thatt he C ent erw as l i abl e f orhi s w r ongf

ul di s char ge, and thatSt amps w as l i abl e f orm al i ci ous i nt er f

er ence w i th hi s empl oym ent . T he C ent erf i l ed an a ns w er , as ki ng t he cou rtt o di s m i s s St r ong’ s compl ai ntpur s uantt o R ul e 12( b) ( 6) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e, as St r ong di d nothave a pr operty r i ghti n the r enew al of hi s contr actor
a ca us e of

act i on forthe C ent er ’ s f ai l ur e t o r enew hi s contr act . T he C ent erthen f i l ed a
m ot i on t o di s m i s s or , i n the al t ernat i ve, f ors um m ary j udgm ent , w hi ch the ci r cui tcourtdeni ed on the gr ound thatthe mot i on w as pr ematur e unt i l di s covery w as compl et ed. ¶5
. A ft er d isc o v e ry w a s c o m p lete d , th e C e n ter file d a n o th e r m o ti o n for su m m ary ju d g m e n t, alleg in g th a t S tro n g w a s u n a b le to sh o w a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t w ith

### Strong al so s ubmi tt ed a copy of an order proving that S tamps had bee n convi ct ed 1 

### of e mbe zz le me nt in 1984 in an ac ti on unre late d to t his one. 3 r es pectt o t he l egal i ty of the C ent er ’ s re f us al t o re new hi s contr act . T he C ent erexpl ai ned that beca us e Str ong had no pr operty i nt er es ti n hi s cont i nued em pl oym entw i th the C ent erbeyond the contr act ed yea r , St r ong had f ai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m upo n w hi ch r el i ef coul d be gr ant ed. A f t era hea r i ng, the ci r cui tcourtgr ant ed the C ent er ’ s m ot i on , fi nd i ng thatther e w er e no gen uine i ssues of

m at er i al f

actas t o w hetherornotSt r ong w as an at - w i l l empl oyee, or
w hetherornothe w as t erm i nat ed f r om hi s pos i t i on. ¶6. I n oppos i t i on t o the C ent er ’ s m ot i on f ors umm ary j udgm ent , St r ong s ubm i t t ed, among otherdo cum ents , his aff i dav i ti n w hich he assert ed that “[ i ] tw as app arentthatthe [C enter ’s ]
m oney w as bei ng s t ol en” be caus e ther e w er e empl oyees w ho l ef tthei r posi t i ons att he C ent er , and the C ent erw as s t i l l r ece i vi ng f eder al gr antm oney t o coverthos e emp l oy ees’
s al ar i es , even though the empl oyees had notbe en r epl ace d. H e as s ert ed thatSt amps, w ho 1
w as i n char ge of

the C ent er ’ s fi nanci al af f ai r s , w as m i s appr opr i at i ng t he al l eged exc es s gr ant
m o n e y . ANAL YS I S AND DI S CU S S I ON OF T HE I S S UE ¶ 7
. S u m m a r y -j u d g m e n t c a s e s a re re v ie w e d d e n o v o o n a p p e a l. B uchanan v. A m er is tar C as i no V i cks bur g I nc. , 852 So. 2d 25, 26 ( ¶3) ( M i s s . 2003)
. “The evi dence m us tbe vi ew ed in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e p a rty a g a in st w h o m th e m o tio n h a s b e e n m a d e . If, i n th is vi ew , ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

act [ , ] and[ ] the movi ng part y i s ent i t l ed t o [ a] j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw , s um m ary j udgm entshou l d
. . . be ent er ed i n [ the movi ng

### “Mississip pi is anemplo yment at-will state. Th e g eneral rule of emplo yment at w ill 2 

### i s that ac ontr a c t

f or e mpl oym e nt

f or an ind e f i ni t e pe ri od

m ay b e t e rm i nat e d at

thewi l lof either p arty, wheth er the termin ationis for any reaso n o r no reasonat all.” Buchanan , 852 So . 2dat 26 (¶4). 4 par ty’ s ] f

avor . ” I d. ( quot i ng W

ill ia m so n ex re l. W

ill ia m so n v . Ke ith , 7 86 So
. 2 d 390, 393 (¶1 0 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 1 )). ¶8. St r ong ar gues thati ti s agai ns tpubl i c p oli cy foran em ploye e t o be f i r ed af t er that empl oy e e h a s c ompl a i ne d of wr on gd oi ng . H e f

urthe ra r gu e s tha tthe p r ot e c t i ons under McArn v. A l l i ed Bruce

- Ter m i ni x C o. , 6 2 6 S o . 2 d 6 0 3 (M iss
. 1 9 9 3 ), ap p ly n o t o n ly to a t-w ill empl oyees , butt o empl oyees i n hi s pos i t i on as w el l
. I n McA rn , an at - w i l l empl oyee s ued

2 hi s f or m erempl oyer , al l egi ng thatthe empl oyerdi s char ged hi m becaus e he r eport ed i l l egal
c o n d u c t o n th e p a rt o f th e e m p lo y e r. T h e M iss iss ip p i S u p re m e C o u rt sta ted : [ T ] her e s houl d be i n atl eas ttw o ci r cumst ance s , a nar r ow publ i c[
- ] pol i cy exce pt i on t o the empl oym ent [
- ] at [
- ] w i l l doctr i ne and thi s shoul d be so w hether th e re is a w ri tt en co n tr ac t or n o t: (1) a n em p loy ee w h o refu ses to p arti cipa te i n an i l l egal act. . . s hal l notbe barr ed by the comm on[
- ] l aw rul e of e m p lo y m e n t a t w ill fro m b rin g in g a n a c tio n in to rt fo r d a m a g e s a g a in st h is e m p lo y e r; [an d ] (2 ) a n e m p lo y e e w h o is d isc h a rg e d fo r re p o rtin g ill e g a l ac ts of hi s empl oyerto t he em pl oyeroranyone e l s e i s notbarr ed by the em ploym ent[ -] at [ -] w i l l do ct ri ne fr om bri ng i ng act i on i n t ortd am ages ag ai nst h is em p loy er. McA rn , 626 So. 2d at607. A ccor di ng t o St r ong, di s t i ngui s hi ng an empl oyee w i th a contr act thats peci f

i es the t i m e the empl oyee w i l l serve i n hi s pos i t i on f r om an at - w i l l empl oyee al l ow s an arbi tr ary l oophol e f orthos e w ho vi ol at e the s t at e’ s publ i c pol i cy. ¶ 9
. S tro n g ’s c o n tra c t w ith th e C e n ter p ro v id e d , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: W H E R E A S, the under s i gned E l i j ah Str ong has been dul y s el ect ed and

### 5

appr oved i n the mannerpr ovi ded by the B oar d of D i r ect ors, forthe pos i t i on of Pr oj ectSpeci al i s tof

the Educat i onal O ppor tuni ty C ent erPr oj ectf or[ the] yearof 2009- 2010 and W H E R E A S, t hi s per s on ag reed t o ent eri nt o a contr actw i th s ai d agenc y evidencing t he term s, con dit i on s as f oll ow s: 1. E m ploym en t begins Sep t em ber 1, 20 09 [ , ] and end s A ug ust 3 1 , 2 0 1 0 [.] 2. T hats ai d per s on i s her eby empl oyed as s t i pul at ed above f or the sai d y ear, the lengt h o f t erm being 12 m on ths. 3. T hatthe s ai d per s on h ereby ac cept s s uch empl oym entand obl i gat es s el f

t o per f or m s uch dut i es as ar e r equi r ed by the E x e c u tiv e D ire c to r a n d th e B o a rd o f D ire c to rs o f th e sa id agenc y, and t o per f

or m hi s /herdut i es i n s ai d pos i t i on i n a sat i sfact ory m ann er and i n acco rdance w i th the poli ci es, rul es, and r egul at i ons of

the B oar d of

D i r ect or s of

s ai d agenc y. 4. T hatthe t ot al s al ary t o be pai d t o s ai d per s on f ors ai d s ervi ces f ort he contr actper i od s hal l be $31, 000. 00 composed of amount of ent i t l ementf

orthe D epartm entof

E ducat i on f

und. 5. S ai d s al ary s hal l be pai d i n 12 i ns t al l m ent s [ , ] $2, 583. 34 eac h, w i th the f

i r stsuch paym entt o be made on the l as tday of the m o n th in w h ich th e e m p lo y e e sta rt[s] t o w o rk , w h ich is app l i cable, and t he rem ai ning p aym ents t o b e m ade o n the l ast d a y o f e a c h m o n th (o r d e sig n a ted p a y p e rio d , w h ich e v e r is appl i cabl e) ther eaf

t erunt i l al l s uch payment s have be en made. 6. I n al l r es pect s , thi s contr acts hal l be s ubj ect to a l l of the ap p li ca b le pro v isio n s o f th e a g en cy , an d su ch p rov isi o n s are her eby i ncorpor at ed as par tof thi s cont r actby expr es s r ef er ence th e re to [.] ¶1 0. A s s t a t e d, a tthe t i me tha tStr on g r e po r t e d whathe s us pe c t e d was i l l e ga l a c t i vi t y by S tam p s, h e w a s u n d e r c o n tra c t w ith th e C e n ter fo r e m p lo y m e n t fo r o n e y e a r, b e g in n in g in Sept ember1, 2009, and endi ng A ugus t31, 2010. B erry i nf or m ed Str ong thathe w oul d not

### 6

b e off ered ano ther con tractaft er the d uti es und er St rong’s em ploym ent cont ractw ere f ul f i l l ed. St r ong w as notan at - w i l l em pl oyee, as ther e w as not hi ng st i pul at ed i n t he contr act
orbetw een the part i es thathi s empl oym entcoul d be t erm i nat ed ata ny t i m e. A ddi t i onal l y, t he r e was n o pr ov i s i on wi thi n hi s c on tr a c tr e ga r di ng c on t i nu e d e mpl oy mentb e yond t he contr act ed yea r . T her ef or e, the pr ot ect i ons e num er at ed i n McA rn do notappl y t o St r ong, and beca us e no r i ghtof

St r ong’ s w as i nf

r i nged upon her e, r ef

us i ng t o ext end McA rn t o St r ong d o e s n o t c re a te w h a t S tr o n g c a lls a lo o p h o le fo r t h o s e w h o v io la te p u b lic p o lic y . ¶11. M or eover , St r ong has notpr oved thatSt amps e ngaged i n i l l egal a ct i vi ty, orthatt he C ent er ’ s deci s i on t o notof f erhi m a new cont r actw as a di r ectr es ul tof hi s compl ai ntabout S t am ps. F urther, S trong’s al l egati on that he w as f i red i s f al se, as an e m p loy ee w ho se
con tractt erm exp i res w i tho ut bei ng renew ed is no tfi red. Itl og i cal l y fol l ow s tha tbecau se St r ong has no r i ghtt o a new contr act , hi s cl ai m of mal i ci ous i nt er f

er ence f ai l s . A ccor di ngl y, the c ir cu itco u rtd id n o t err i n g ran ti n g su m m ary jud g m en t i n fav o r of the C en ter. ¶12. T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E C L A Y C O U N T Y C IR C U IT C O U R T IS AF F I RMED . AL L CO S T S OF T HI S AP P E AL AR E AS S E S S E D T O T HE APP ELLANT. LE E, C. J . , GRI F F I S , P . J . , BA RNE S , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CARL TON, M AXW EL L A ND F AI R, J J . , CONCUR. J AM ES , J . , CONCURS I N P ART W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.