Opinion ID: 860218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: A. Whether the decision of the Circuit Court of Hinds County, which found insufficient evidence to affirm the decisions of the hearing officer and the Employee Appeals Board in this case but failed to cite specific examples of inadequacy of the facts or of facts that support the Circuit Court's determination, properly applied the stringent standard of review under which agency determinations are to be evaluated on appeal. B. Whether the incidents of disparate treatment found in this record adequately support the determinations of the hearing officer and the Employee Appeals that Department of Wildlife discriminated against Tammie F. Hodnett because of her sex. This Court's standard of review of an administrative agency's findings and decisions is well established. An agency's findings must remain undisturbed unless said findings 1) are not supported by substantial evidence, 2) are arbitrary or capricious, 3) are beyond the scope or power granted to the agency, or 4) violate one's constitutional rights. Sprouse v. Miss. Employment Sec. Com'n, 639 So.2d 901 (Miss. 1994). The circuit court reversed the ruling of the Board, finding that Hodnett's dismissal was based substantially on (her) work performance rather than sexual discrimination by her fellow area managers and supervisors. The circuit court thus concluded that the Board's ruling was unsupported by substantial evidence, and this Court must determine whether this conclusion was correct. The record reveals several instances in which Hodnett failed to perform various tasks assigned to her or in which the tasks were not performed on time. Brazil documented at least three times in which Hodnett was late for work, although he noted that he did not see Hodnett often and he felt that the actual number of instances of tardiness was higher. Darrell Dew, area manager at Twin Oaks, testified that, on one occasion, Hodnett was at least three hours late in relieving him. Hodnett disputed this assertion in her testimony, however, stating that there was no set time for her to report on that occasion and that she was not significantly tardy. Brazil testified that he asked Hodnett to install two directional signs in November and that he had purchased the signs for her, but as of December 18th, the date I recall, she had not done it, and they were still in the back end of her truck. Brazil testified that Hodnett also failed to complete the process of getting bids and specifications for pieces of equipment that she needed in the area, that she failed to prepare a map for the beaver dams, and that she failed to timely install a check-in station. Brazil conceded, however, that the installation of the check-in station was not a task which Hodnett could have performed alone, and Hodnett testified that she did not receive needed assistance from other area managers. Brazil did not approve of the quality of much of the work which Hodnett did perform, citing errors in letters which she wrote and various mistakes which she made in the performance of her administrative duties. Brazil accordingly gave Hodnett an unsatisfactory evaluation of 1.97 out of a possible 5, which evaluation led in part to her dismissal. Brazil testified that Hodnett's dismissal was based on the accumulation of irresponsible acts and lack of incentive or -- or she did not put the -- her best foot forward, if I might add. She did not attempt to do a good job. Hodnett testified that one reason that she was unable to complete some of the tasks assigned to her under Brazil's PIP was the flooding of the Lake George area in the Winter and Spring of 1994. Brazil and Thomason testified, however, that they did not consider the flooding in the Lake George area to be a valid excuse for Hodnett's failure to complete her assigned tasks. Hodnett also notes that she was required to spend approximately one-third of her time assisting in the Mahannah and Twin Oaks area, which fact, she asserts, limited the amount of work which she could perform at Lake George. Brazil conceded that Hodnett did perform some of the tasks assigned to her, such as purchasing beaver traps, placing boundary markers along the Lake George area, and setting up bluebird boxes. The record does contain indications that Hodnett was treated differently or rudely on occasion based on her status as a woman. Flynt did not deny that he once made a statement to Hodnett when she was lifting something that she might strain her ovaries. In addition, Hodnett testified that she often observed Brazil assisting the other area managers at their locations, but that he rarely came to Lake George to assist her. She testified further that several times that Don and the other managers got together, and I was excluded. I wasn't included in anything, like the deer health checks, that they went on. Hodnett's testimony described a work atmosphere of exclusion, with the male employees supporting and assisting one another but failing to provide her with needed advice and assistance. After observing the conflicting testimony and evidence, the Hearing Officer concluded that Hodnett's allegations of discrimination had merit, writing in his ruling that: Having heard the testimony of witnesses and observed their demeanor, it is apparent that there was never any effort by the other Area Manager to include or involve the Appealing Party in any of the group activities, nor was there any testimony that she was involved in any discussions with and between the other Area Managers about their mutual problems in the operation and administration of the management of a wildlife area. The two day testimony did not reveal that there was any evidence of cooperation exhibited by any of the other Area Managers toward the Appealing Party. It is very apparent to this Court, that the Appealing Party, the only female Area Manager employed by the DWF&P, was expected to be an outstanding Area Manager, unfortunately, she is not an outstanding Area Manager. (S)he is, in the opinion of this Court a competent and fairly successful Area Manager, in spite of the discrimination and lack of cooperation she faced. . . . It is clear to the Court from the testimony, that had she been any one of the male area managers, her evaluation would have been different and it would not have been