Opinion ID: 1652455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶ 12. Holly complains that Hearing Officer Mason erred in his ruling, because he applied an improper standard of review. In his order dismissing Holly's appeal, Hearing Officer Mason stated: The Appealing Party has the burden of proving that the action taken by the agency is without merit, in error or is arbitrary or capricious. it [sic] is the opinion of the Hearing Officer that the Appealing Party has failed to sustain this burden. Further if the agency has acted in accordance with the published policies, rule [sic] and regulations of the State Personnel Board, and if the personnel action taken by the agency is allowed under the said policies, rules and regulations, the Employee Appeals Board shall not alter the action taken. Section 25-9-127, governing appeals to the EAB, requires the appealing party to furnish evidence that the reasons stated in the notice of dismissal or action adversely affecting his compensation or employment status are not true or are not sufficient grounds for the action taken. Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-127(1) (1994). No employee of any state agency may be dismissed unless there is good cause and after written notice and hearing. Miss. Code Ann. § 25-9-127 (Supp.1990). Employees affected by adverse decisions may appeal to the Employee Appeals Board (EAB) for de novo hearing, then to circuit court for judicial review on the record, and finally to this Court. Miss.Code Ann. §§ 25-9-131 and 25-9-132 (Supp.1990). Review by the circuit court is limited to determinations of whether the EAB's actions are supported by substantial evidence, are arbitrary or capricious, or are in violation of some statutory or constitutional right of the employee. Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-131 (Supp.1990). Hood v. Miss. Dep't of Wildlife Conservation, 571 So.2d 263, 267 (Miss.1990). ¶ 13. As the MDOC points out in its brief, the standard of review applied by Hearing Officer Mason is synonymous with that set out in § 25-9-127(1). Black's Law Dictionary defines the term arbitrary and capricious as [c]haracterization of a decision or action taken by an administrative agency or inferior court meaning willful and unreasonable action without consideration or in disregard of facts or law or without determining principle. Black's Law Dictionary 105 (6th ed. 1990). Merits is defined as ... [t]he substance, elements, or grounds of a cause of action or defense. Id. at 989-90. Common sense tells us that the term in error has the same meaning as not true. The standard applied by Hearing Officer Mason, therefore, is synonymous with the statutory standard of review requiring Holly to prove that the MDOC's reasons for terminating him were not true or insufficient grounds for termination. We find no merit in this assignment of error.