Opinion ID: 1601980
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: WHETHER THE DECISION TO TERMINATE McNEEL WAS SUPPORTED BY AN OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE OR WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

Text: ¶ 16. MDHS argues that the circuit court's decision to uphold McNeel's reinstatement goes against the overwhelming weight of evidence indicating that McNeel did entertain a conflict of interest and that a per se breach of MDHS policy occurred. In support of its argument, MDHS claims that social workers should not be allowed to adopt a [child] they become attached to through their professional endeavors [because] ... No natural parent would ever regain custody once an MDHS social worker decided they would prefer to have the child. [A.B.'s] mother certainly will not. This argument fails to recognize that McNeel's husband, Billy, did not adopt A.B. but was merely appointed as her guardian, which is not a permanent situation and does not prevent A.B.'s mother from regaining custody. ¶ 17. Next, MDHS argues that it presented overwhelming evidence supporting its decision to terminate McNeel's employment. To examine the EAB's role and the burden of proof required in an appeal of this nature, it is helpful to begin with the applicable laws and then consider the resulting administrative regulations and guidelines. ¶ 18. In pertinent part, Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-131(1) (Rev.2003) states: Any employee in the state service may appeal his dismissal or other action adversely affecting his employment status to the employee appeals board created herein. The proceedings before the employee appeals board shall be de novo, and the employee shall be afforded all applicable safeguards of procedural due process. Additionally, Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-132 (Rev.2003) outlines the procedure for review of a state agency's dismissal of an employee: Any employee aggrieved by a final decision of the employee appeals board shall be entitled to judicial review thereof in the manner provided in this section. (1) An appeal may be taken by such employee to the circuit court of the principal county of the employee's employment or the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, by filing a petition with the clerk of such court and executing and filing bond payable to the state of Mississippi with sufficient sureties to be approved by the clerk of the court, in the penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00), conditioned upon the payment of all costs of appeal, including the cost of preparing the transcript of the hearing before the employee appeals board. The petition and bond shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the final decision of the employee appeals board. Upon approval of the bond, the clerk of the court shall notify the employee appeals board, which shall prepare its record in the matter and transmit it to the circuit court. (2) The scope of review of the circuit court in such cases shall be limited to a review of the record made before the employee appeals board or hearing officer to determine if the action of the employee appeals board is unlawful for the reason that it was: (a) Not supported by any substantial evidence; (b) Arbitrary or capricious; or (c) In violation of some statutory or constitutional right of the employee. (3) No relief shall be granted based upon the court's finding of harmless error by the board in complying with the procedural requirements of sections 25-9-127 through 25-9-129; provided, however, in the event that there is a finding of prejudicial error in the proceedings, the cause may be remanded for a rehearing consistent with the findings of the court. (4) Any party aggrieved by action of the circuit court may appeal to the supreme court in the manner provided by law. (5) In each controversy in which the employee appeals board assumes jurisdiction, the state personnel board shall assess the respondent state agency a reasonable fee to defray the cost of recording the hearing. The state personnel board is hereby authorized to contract with certified court reporters to record hearings before the employee appeals board. This Court has ruled that the de novo review of the EAB is tempered by the EAB's own rules. In Johnson v. Mississippi Department of Corrections, 682 So.2d 367, 370 (Miss.1996), this Court held that under then Rule 20(b), 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. With the 1999 revisions, this rule is now State Personnel Board Rule 10.40.22(B), allowing: The Employee Appeals Board may modify an action of a responding agency but may not increase the severity of such action on the appealing party. If the responding agency has acted in accordance with the published policies, rules and regulations of the State Personnel Board, and if the personnel action taken by the responding agency is allowed under said policies, rules and regulations, the Employee Appeals Board shall not alter the action, including but not limited to the compensation paid to the employee, taken by the agency. This rule must be considered along with the other rules, including SPB Rule 10.40.19 (Rev.1999), defining the burden of proof: B. The appealing party shall have the burden of proving that the action taken against the employee is arbitrary, capricious, against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and merits the relief requested. However, the rules are not at odds with one another as it is reasonable to note that had the agency correctly followed it rules, policies and procedure, it would likely not have taken action against the overwhelming weight of evidence or in an arbitrary or capricious manner. ¶ 19. This Court has defined substantial evidence: Substantial evidence, though not easily defined, means something more than a mere scintilla of evidence, Johnson v. Ferguson, 435 So.2d 1191 (Miss.1983) and that it does not rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence. Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. McClain, 149 So.2d 523 (Miss.1963). It may be said that it means such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Substantial evidence means evidence which is substantial, that is, affording a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. State Oil & Gas Bd. v. Mississippi Min. & Roy. Own. Ass'n, 258 So.2d 767 (Miss. 1971). United States v. Harper, 450 F.2d 1032 (5th Cir.1971). Delta CMI v. Speck, 586 So.2d 768, 773 (Miss.1991). ¶ 20. When an administrative agency's decision is not based on substantial evidence, it necessarily follows that the decision is arbitrary and capricious and [a]n administrative agency's decision is arbitrary when it is not done according to reason and judgment, but depending on the will alone. An action is capricious if done without reason, in a whimsical manner, implying either a lack of understanding of or disregard for the surrounding facts and settled controlling principles. Miss. State Dep't of Health v. Natchez, 743 So.2d 973, 977 (Miss.1999); See also Burks v. Amite County Sch. Dist., 708 So.2d 1366,1370 (Miss.1998). ¶ 21. This Court must review the decision of the hearing officer that was affirmed by the full EAB and the circuit court. After extensive testimony, the hearing officer found that MDHS's termination of McNeel was not supported by the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The hearing officer observed the testimony of witnesses and their demeanor and found that McNeel was not professionally involved with A.B. at the time her husband was appointed guardian. The hearing officer further found that McNeel did not discuss the child's home situation with the natural mother until after another MDHS employee contacted Billy about taking A.B. and that adopting the child, or taking her permanently from the natural mother, was never discussed. ¶ 22. The hearing officer emphasized his finding that there is a major difference between guardianship and adoption. He cited the Black's Law Dictionary definitions of the two terms following: Adoption is the taking and receiving as one's own that to which he bore no prior relation, colorable or otherwise.... The act of one who take's another's child into his own family, treating him as his own, and giving him all the rights and duties of his own child.... A juridical act creating between two persons certain relations, purely civil, of paternity and filiation.... The relationship created statutory status, not a contractual relation. A guardian is a person lawfully invested with the power, and charged with the duty, of taking care of the person and managing the property rights of another person, who for some peculiarity of status, or defect of age, understanding, or self-control, is considered incapable of administering his own affairs. ¶ 23. Though the MDHS avers that its termination decision should not be reversed because MDHS rules and regulations were followed in the process, the record does not indicate substantial evidence to support its allegations. The record consists of letters from various members in the community, testimony from Billy and Carolyn McNeel, testimony from McNeel's co-workers and supervisors, and a few documents from A.B.'s file. The record clearly supports the hearing officer's findings that MDHS's allegations are not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, he was correct in ordering McNeel to be reinstated with back pay. Two appellate forums reviewed the hearing officer's decision and affirmed it. On this record this Court can only affirm.