Opinion ID: 1759424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Institute a Performance Improvement Plan

Text: Rule 20(B) of the EAB's Administrative Rules dated July of 1989 addresses the relief that can be granted by the EAB. It reads as follows: B. 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 taken by the agency. [emphasis supplied] The EAB stated in its order that it had problems with the failure of Young's supervisor to initiate a performance improvement plan as per State Personnel Board requirements. Young claims the circuit judge erred when he reversed the EAB on this point because there is substantial evidence in the record that the MSTC, contrary to Miss. Code Ann. § 25-9-103(d) and regulations of the SPB, terminated him without affording him the opportunity to correct any deficiencies in his job performance. The thrust of Young's argument is that the MSTC failed to follow the published guidelines, rules, and regulations of the SPB in the termination of his employment and, therefore, the EAB had a clear mandate under its Rule 20(B) to modify the action of the agency. Young also contends the circuit court substituted its own interpretation of the statutes and regulations for that of the EAB, and (1) failed to give due deference to the EAB's interpretation of the law in its field of expertise and (2) erred as a matter of law in that its ruling directly contradicted applicable statutes and regulations. We do not agree and hold the circuit judge reached the right result. Section 9.0 of the Mississippi SPB Policy Manual dated 07-01-89 and titled Discipline and Corrective Action requires the application of disciplinary action in steps of increasing severity whenever practical. Section 9.20 of the Policy Manual titled Forms of Discipline states in its first sentence that [t]he appointing authority or designated representative shall take corrective action or formally discipline an employee who is guilty of an offense. [emphasis supplied] Section 9.20.1 of the manual titled Corrective Action Preliminary to Formal Disciplinary Action states [t]he appointing authority or a designated representative may attempt to correct unacceptable behavior ..., `whenever practical,' prior to taking formal [disciplinary] action against an employee. [emphasis supplied] By virtue of section 9.20.2 formal disciplinary actions include dismissal. Section 9.20, which calls for corrective action or formal disciplinary measures, contemplates formal disciplinary action without the necessity of first implementing a performance improvement plan as a means of correcting misconduct or inefficiency. Section 9.20.1 is permissive in the sense that the agency may attempt to correct unacceptable behavior whenever practical prior to taking formal action against an employee. In short, a performance improvement plan is not mandated by SPB regulations. At best, corrective action is encouraged whenever practical. We are aware of our duty of deference to agency interpretation and practice in areas of administration by law committed to their responsibility. Nevertheless, agency fact finding and legal interpretation is subject to judicial review and where, as here, the conclusions reached by the EAB are contrary to law, this deference must give way. The circuit court correctly found that the EAB could not reverse the termination of Young on the ground that the MSTC had failed to institute a performance improvement plan.