Case Name: Laverne JOHNSON v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1996-10-03
Citations: 682 So. 2d 367
Docket Number: Nos. 91-CC-00523-SCT, 92-CC-00931-SCT
Parties: Laverne JOHNSON v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
Judges: DAN LEE, C.J., PRATHER, P.J., and PITTMAN, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 682
Pages: 367–374

Head Matter:
Laverne JOHNSON v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
Nos. 91-CC-00523-SCT, 92-CC-00931-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Oct. 3, 1996.
P.J. Townsend, Jr., Townsend, McWilliams & Holladay, Drew, for appellant.
James M. Norris, Parehman, for appellee.

Opinion:
SMITH, Justice,
for the Court:
This ease comes to this Court on appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, which reversed the decision of the Employee Appeals Board (EAB) which purportedly found that Laverne Johnson in fact committed the offense charged, but that the punishment imposed by the hearing officer was excessive. The circuit judge reinstated the decision of the hearing officer. We find that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the decision of the hearing officer. This Court agrees with the circuit judge and therefore affirms.
FACTS
Laverne Johnson had been employed for sixteen years as a secretary by the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) in Parehman, Mississippi. On October 20,1989, Johnson received a package at the Parehman post office bearing an Alabama return address. Johnson's office was located approximately a hundred feet from the Parehman post office. In fact, the package had been mailed from the post office in Tunica, Mississippi.
Johnson claimed that she believed the package contained clothing she was expecting to be sent to her from a relative in Alabama. However, upon opening the package Johnson discovered that it contained items normally sent to inmates. Johnson then placed the package in her vehicle and did not report or turn in the package to security or internal affairs as required by MDOC policy. The only action taken by Johnson was the notification of, Frank Meeks, a MDOC co-worker, about her receipt of the package.
Johnson argues that she intended to turn the package in when she has an opportunity to do so. Johnson claimed that she was unable to leave that day because she was the only secretary in the office and her supervisor, Eddie Lucas, was out.
However, Frank Meeks testified that Johnson asked him to pick up the package in question and deliver it to Unit 25, a housing unit for inmates at Parehman.
Johnson was stopped in her vehicle late that afternoon and a search of the package revealed marijuana. Johnson was then terminated by MDOC for violation of a Class Three Offense, to-wit:
acts of conduct occurring on or off the job related to job performance and are of such nature that to continue the employee in the assigned position could constitute negligence in regard to the agency's duties to the public or to other state employees.
Johnson appealed her termination to the EAB in accordance with the provisions of Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-131 (1972) and the Rules of the State Personnel Board (SPB). The hearing officer affirmed her termination.
Upon review by the EAB, the hearing officer's findings were unanimously accepted. However, the EAB found that the penalty recommended by the hearing officer was too severe and therefore reduced the termination to a thirty-day suspension after which Johnson should be reinstated with back pay.
The MDOC sought a review by writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. The circuit judge concluded that the EAB could not accept the findings of fact made by the hearing officer and substitute its own judgment regarding the penalty when the decision of the hearing officer was in accordance with the rules of the State Personnel Board (SPB).
Aggrieved, Johnson, appeals to this Court claiming that the final order of the EAB may not appealed by a state agency. Johnson also argues that the lower court erred in holding that the authority of the EAB is controlled by Rule 20(b) of the Employee Appeal Board Administrative Rules, in lieu of Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-131 (1972) as amended.
DISCUSSION OF LAW
Johnson argues that a final decision by the EAB is not appealable by a state agency to circuit court, either by statute or by writ of certiorari. This issue was presented to and resolved by this Court in Gill v. Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation, 574 So.2d 586 (Miss.1991). Johnson, although well aware of this Court's ruling in Gill, nevertheless, requests that we revisit the issue. In Gill, this Court held that an administrative agency has a right to judicial review of a final decision of the EAB by writ of certiorari. Id. at 590. Gill is correct, therefore we decline Johnson's invitation to revisit the issue.
Next, Johnson argues that the circuit judge erred in holding that the authority of the EAB is controlled by Rule 20(b) of the Employee Appeal Board Administrative Rules, in light of the explicit powers accorded to the EAB in Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-131.
Rule 20(b) as promulgated by the SPB states in pertinent part:
If the responding agency has acted in accordance with the published policies, rules and regulations of the SPB and if the personnel action taken by the responding agency is allowed under said policies, rules and regulations, the EAB shall not alter the action taken by the Agency.
Rule 17(b) of the Rules of the Mississippi Employees Board states:
The appealing party shall have the burden of proving that an alleged grieveable action was taken, was in error, and merits the relief requested.
The pertinent parts of Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-131 state:
(1) . The employee appeals board may modify the action of the department, agency or institution but may not increase the severity of such action on the employee. Such appointing authority shall promptly comply with the order issued as a result of the appeal to the employee appeals board.
(2) Any employee aggrieved by a final decision of the employee appeals board shall be entitled to judicial review thereof in the manner provided by law.
It is true that the statute explicitly states that the EAB may modify the decision of a state agency. However, as the circuit court correctly noted, the statute does not provide any guidance as to under what circumstances the EAB may modify an action. Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-115 gives the SPB the authority to make rules and regulations. Our review here does not find the SPB's rules to be in contradiction to the statutes.
The rules, statutes and procedures were properly adhered to in this case by the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The factual findings of the hearing officer support termination of Laverne Johnson from her position of employment at MDOC. A brief review of the pertinent facts is indeed helpful.
Laverne Johnson received an insured package from the penitentiary post office, which was located "not very far at all . maybe a hundred feet," from her employment work station at the MDOC classifications office. The package contained marijuana, which was ultimately discovered during a search of her vehicle at the end of that day. Johnson knew that the package was not hers, but failed to turn it in to her superiors. She apparently only mentioned the package to Frank Meeks. However, more significantly, Johnson, in fact, asked Meeks to pick up the package and deliver it to Unit 25.
Johnson admittedly knew the contents of the package were those usually received by inmates, yet she did not report the package to superiors which was in violation of the MDOC policy. Johnson testified that she had received training on con games devised by inmates, including a section regarding inmate packages. By virtue of her training, Johnson had been instructed not to take packages to inmates. The record reveals she had numerous opportunities to turn in the package but did not do so. Nor did she report receipt of the package to her own supervisor, Lawrence Henderson, whose office was a mere fifteen feet away from her own. She also failed to report the incident to her supervisor Eddie Lucas and changed her statement concerning the incident to investigators. Neither statement by Johnson mentioned her conversation with Meeks. When told about Johnson situation, the fellow employees, Marilyn Greganti and Patricia Roach, stated, "What did she lie about this time," and that she should "quit lying." Johnson also admitted that she had spent the night of May 28, 1989, with ex-inmate Belinda Criddle.
The ultimate question is whether Johnson's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. The hearing officer determined that her actions were not reasonable. The EAB reinstated her employment. After which the circuit judge reversed the Board and reinstated the hearing officer's decision to terminate Johnson.
Johnson argues that the EAB has not made an accurate analysis of the facts or that the evidence does not show that the offense was committed. The alleged offense requires a determination that the employee's conduct was of such a nature that continued employment of that person would constitute negligence on the part of the agency. Very strong evidence was presented in this case which suggests that Láveme Johnson is not suited to be an employee for the Mississippi Department of Corrections. One could conclude that Johnson has shown a propensity to wilfully smuggle packages to criminals and thus is "unfit" to work for the MDOC. This conclusion is affirmed when one considers statements made by Greganti and Roach, Johnson's fellow employees.
There are currently no cases that address the right of a state agency's right to dismiss a person when it appears that retention would be negligent. However, this situation is analogous to those where employers have been held liable to third parties for negligently retaining the employee. In Eagle Motor Lines v. Mitchell, 228 Miss. 398, 78 So.2d 482 (1955), this Court stated:
Retaining in employment a servant who is, or should be, known to be incompetent, habitually negligent, or otherwise unfit, is such negligence on the part of the master as will render him liable for injuries to third persons resulting from the acts of the incompetent servant, whether the master's knowledge of the servant's incompetency was actual, or direct, or constructive; the master is chargeable with knowledge of the competency of the servant if by the exercise of due or reasonable care or diligence he could have ascertained such incompetence.
Mitchell, 223 Miss, at 412, 78 So.2d 482.
While there was no evidence that Johnson was incompetent or habitually negligent, abundance of credible evidence exists suggesting that Johnson is "otherwise unfit," due to her apparent propensity to smuggle packages to criminals. We must agree with the circuit judge and his analysis of the situation. Johnson is "otherwise unfit" to work for MDOC.
This Court must afford deference to the fact finding role of the administrative agency and the hearing officer's findings. There is strong evidence here, that Johnson knew exactly what she was doing, smuggling drugs to an inmate. Why would she have asked Meeks to deliver a package to Unit 25, which she knew was not hers, and of the type received by inmates? Her claim that she was being conned by a "con" appears but a ruse. In light of these facts, it is readily apparent Johnson should not be working with inmates at MDOC.
Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-127 and 25-9-131 in conjunction with State Personnel Board Rule 20(b) allow termination for Group III misconduct. Johnson's was charged with a Group III offence. Discharge under § 25-9-127 must be for negligence, inefficiency or other good cause. Moreover, the burden of proof was on Johnson.
How in good conscience could the EAB, having accepted the hearing officer's findings of fact, set aside Johnson's termination on the ground that such action was too severe? The hearing officer's termination of Johnson was appropriate and consistent with treatment equally applied to all employees for the same violations. Moreover, this same authority also prevents the EAB from reaching a decision not supported by their factual findings. Rule 20(b) mandates that the EAB shall not alter the action taken by the agency, if the agency has acted in accordance with the published rule and if the personnel action taken by the agency is allowed under the guidelines. That is exactly what happened here. MDOC acted within the rules under which termination was allowed. There is no finding to the contrary. Johnson, having the burden of proof, failed to establish that good cause did not exist for her termination.
Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-132(2)(a)(b)(c), (1972) allows review of the EAB decisions to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, are not arbitrary or capricious, or not in violation of a statutory or constitutional right. The EAB adopted the facts of the hearing officer, but nevertheless, found that the "termination was too severe a penalty under the circumstances." Judge Graves' perusal of the record resulted in his adoption of the facts of the hearing officer. He therefore reversed the EAB, because he found their action to be "arbitrary and capricious." There was substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the hearing officer who found good cause for termination. Judge Graves' action in reinstating the decision of the hearing officer was imminently correct. A review of these facts from the record as set out above mandates that this Court should affirm the circuit court. This issue is without merit.
CONCLUSION
There is no merit to either of Johnson's claims. There was substantial evidence in this record to support the decision of the hearing officer. We agree with the circuit judge's reversal of the EAB decision. Johnson is "otherwise unfit" to work for the MDOC. For all of the reasons heretofore cited, we affirm the lower court.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
DAN LEE, C.J., PRATHER, P.J., and PITTMAN, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., and MILLS, JJ., concur.
BANKS, J., dissents with separate written opinion joined by SULLIVAN, P.J., and McRAE, J.