Buford v. Holladay, Civ. A. No. J89-0233(B).
| Decision Date | 20 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. J89-0233(B). |
| Parties | Richard L. BUFORD, Plaintiff, v. J. Mac HOLLADAY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
Whitman B. Johnson, III, Michael F. Myers, Steen Reynolds Dalehite & Currie, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff.
Mary Margaret Bowers, Richard D. Mitchell, James F. Steel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Miss., for defendants.
This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On June 5, 1990, the United States Magistrate Judge consolidated the present action, for discovery purposes only, with George A. George v. Holladay, et al., Civil Action No. J89-0234 (B); Ginger A. Croce v. Holladay, et al., Civil Action No. J89-0235 (B); Joe D. Leach v. Holladay, et al., Civil Action No. J89-0236 (B); Kenneth J. Goodwin v. Holladay, et al., Civil Action No. J89-0237 (B); and Joyce W. Lewis v. Holladay, et al., Civil Action No. J89-0238 (B), because all cases involved similar claims and questions of law. On June 27, 1990, all of the above cases were reassigned to this Court. The Court finds, therefore, that this Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in the present action, Buford v. Holladay, et al., Civil Action No. J89-0233 (B), is binding on all related actions listed above to the extent that all cases involve the same claims, the same Defendants, and the same questions of law, except where the Court notes material factual distinctions. For purposes of clarity, the Court will refer to Plaintiffs in the plural form in this Memorandum Opinion and Order unless the Court otherwise distinguishes between Plaintiffs.
All parties have responded to the respective Motions. The Court, having considered the Motions and responses, along with memoranda of authorities and attachments thereto, is of the opinion that Defendants' Motions should be granted with respect to Plaintiffs' due process claims, and should be denied with respect to Plaintiffs' age discrimination claims.
On or about May 16, 1988, the Legislature of the State of Mississippi approved Senate Bill 2925, which was subsequently signed by Governor Ray Mabus and enacted under Mississippi General Laws of 1988, Chapter 518. Chapter 518 was codified at Miss.Code Ann. § 57-1-1 et seq. Chapter 518 provided as follows:
SECTION 1. (1) The Mississippi Research and Development Center is hereby abolished from and after July 1, 1988. All of the functions of the center shall be transferred on that date to the Mississippi Department of Economic Development or to the University Research Center, which is created in Section 3 of this act.
Subsections (2)(a) and (b) and (3)(a) of Section One, Chapter 518, transferred functions and personnel in accordance with the abolition of the Research and Development Center as follows:
In sum, Chapter 518, Section One abolished the Mississippi Research and Development Center ("R & D Center"), reorganized the Department of Economic Development1 into a new department that included some functions that were formerly performed by the R & D Center, and transferred the remainder of the functions formerly performed by the R & D Center to the University Research Center. Chapter 518, in addition, transferred employees of the R & D Center to the Department of Economic Development or to the University Research Center in accordance with the transfer of the functions.
The provisions of Chapter 518 that form the crux of the present action, however, deal with the reorganization of the Department of Economic Development. Subsection (3)(d) of Section One provided as follows:
(3)(d) It is the intention of the Legislature that there be a reduction in personnel where there is a duplication of effort as a result of the transfers required by this subsection. The Department of Economic Development in its reorganization pursuant to this Act may utilize savings realized from personnel attrition and other economies to reallocate and reclassify positions within the department, subject to the approval of the State Personnel Board.
Subsection (6) of Section 28 provided in pertinent part as follows:
The executive director of the department shall be responsible for staffing the department with persons meeting established qualifications for comparable positions of duty and responsibility including, but not limited to, associate directors, deputy directors and bureau directors ... For a period of one (1) year after the effective date of this act July 1, 1988 the personnel actions of the department shall be exempt from the State Personnel Board Procedures in order to give the department flexibility in making an orderly, effective and timely transition to the mandated reorganization. (Date supplied).
Subsection (6) of Section 28 was codified at Miss.Code Ann. § 57-1-5(6) and was in effect during the time period in issue from July 1, 1988 to July 1, 1989. In reliance on Section One, Subsection (3)(d) and Section 28, Subsection (6), Defendant J. Mac Holladay, Executive Director of the Department of Economic Development, embarked upon a reorganization program that encompassed Plaintiffs, all of whom were employed by the Department prior to the enactment of Chapter 518. On October 26, 1988, Defendant Holladay issued a memorandum to all employees of the Department of Economic Development that stated in pertinent part as follows:
This will serve as your official notification that the property interest of employees of the Mississippi Department of Economic Development has been eliminated for a period of one year beginning July 1, 1988. In effect, this means that you are employed at the sole discretion of this Department and have no vested rights in employment. This action is taken pursuant to provisions set forth in Senate Bill 2925 as passed by the Regular Session of the Mississippi Legislature and approved by the Governor.
Plaintiff's Exhibit Q in Buford v. Holladay, et al. In a separate memorandum to Department employees on October 26, 1988, Defendant Holladay stated that budgetary constraints mandated the elimination of 15 positions, but noted that "virtually every job description has been rewritten" and positions would be "competitively realigned." See Plaintiff's Exhibit R in Buford v. Holladay. Department employees, according to Defendant Holladay, would have the "first opportunity" for employment in the restructured Department, and would be allowed to apply for a maximum of two positions by October 28, 1988. Id. Interviews would be conducted from October 31, 1988, through November 3, 1988, and job selections would be made on November 9.
Richard Buford, Plaintiff in Buford v. Holladay, et al., held the position of Management Consultant in the Department of Economic Development. Plaintiff's Exhibit Q, Defendants' Exhibit 7 in Buford v. Holladay, et al. As a Management Consultant, according to Buford, Buford helped manufacturing firms identify and resolve management and financial problems, and assisted in business stabilization or expansion. Buford also contends that he helped businesses secure financing and equity capital. Plaintiff's Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment at 7 in Buford. Buford applied for the position of Associate Manager Senior for Existing Business, and for a position as Associate Manager Senior in Research, but was not hired for either position. Buford was asked, but declined, to apply for the position of Associate Manager for Existing Business in Tupelo, Mississippi. Buford was 56 years old at the time of the reorganization.
Joyce Lewis, Plaintiff in Lewis v. Holladay, et al., held the position of Small Business Information Coordinator in the Department of Economic Development. Lewis's duties included, but were not limited to, the planning, preparation and maintenance of seminar schedules and materials. Lewis applied for a position as an Administrative Assistant in the Department of Communications and Advertising and in the Department of Tourism, but was not hired for either position.2 Lewis was 59 years old at the time of the reorganization.
George A. George, Plaintiff in George v. Holladay, et al., was Director of the Research and Engineering Division and was a Senior Economic Analyst with the Department of Economic Development. George's duties included supervision and economic analysis. George applied for but was not hired as Manager of Research in the new Department, and refused to apply for the position of Research Analyst. George was 60 years old at the time of the reorganization.
Ken Goodwin, Plaintiff in Goodwin v. Holladay, et al., held the employee designation of Civil Engineer III in the Department of Economic Development. Goodwin's duties, he contends, included preparing feasibility studies for industrial park development and engineering and location assistance for economic development. See Plaintiff's Memorandum Brief at 5. Goodwin, like George, was not hired as Manager of Research in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Oklahoma Corp. Com'n
...v. City of Warwick, 909 F.2d 608, 619-21 (1st Cir.1990); United States v. LULAC, 793 F.2d 636, 648 (5th Cir.1986); Buford v. Holladay, 791 F.Supp. 635, 643-44 (S.D.Miss.1992). Leading commentators also agree that for administrative agencies which possess both legislative and judicial powers......
-
La. Cmty. Dev. Capital Inv. Fund, Inc. v. Grambling Legends Square Taxing Dist.
...(5th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Indeed, "the legislative determination provides all the process that is due." Buford v. Holladay, 791 F. Supp. 635, 643 (S.D. Miss. 1992), aff'd sub nom. McMurtray v. Holladay, 11 F.3d 499 (5th Cir. 1993).10Page 13VI. Equal Protection Claim Plaintiffs als......
-
McMurtray v. Holladay
...process of law. Holladay again filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district granted in February 1992. See Buford v. Holladay, 791 F.Supp. 635 (S.D.Miss.1992). 4 McMurtray, George, and Croce appeal II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review We review a summary judgment de novo, sitting ......
-
Price v. Western Resources, Inc., CIV. A. 98-2276-GTV.
...it has created, such as ... causes of action, without depriving the affected individuals of procedural due process." Buford v. Holladay, 791 F.Supp. 635, 643 (S.D.Miss.1992) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 433, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982)). When it passed the K......