City of Jackson v. Martin
| Decision Date | 12 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-CC-168,91-CC-168 |
| Citation | 623 So.2d 253 |
| Parties | CITY OF JACKSON, Mississippi v. Anita MARTIN. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Matthew M. Moore, Jackson, for appellant.
Dale Danks, Jr., Keyes Danks & Leonard, Jackson, for appellee.
Before PRATHER, P.J., and BANKS and SMITH, JJ.
BANKS, Justice, for the court:
We are called upon to determine whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the city to comply with an order of its civil service commission. We answer in the affirmative and affirm.
I
The parties do not dispute the essential facts in this matter. As of May 14, 1990, Anita Martin held the position of Director of the Aging Services Division (now called the "Senior Services Division") of the Jackson Department of Human and Cultural Services. She had held this position for three and one-half years. She had also served as Acting Director of the Aging Services Division for ten months before being given the permanent post. She had worked a total of fifteen years in the Department of Human and Cultural Services.
(a) during her term as Aging Services Manager, Anita failed to provide the management and leadership needed to efficiently provide services to the senior citizens of Jackson;
(b) during her tenure as Aging Services Manager, there was a continuous failure to file timely reports with funding agencies;
(c) there was a near total lack of coordination and communication between the various segments of the Aging Division;
(d) there was a lack of financial management in the Aging Services Division; and
(e) Anita Martin refused to communicate with members of her staff.
A pretermination hearing was held on May 2, 1990, in the office of Otha Burton. Anita Martin was present and accompanied by counsel. On May 14, 1990, Anita Martin was notified by letter from Otha Burton that she was dismissed effective immediately.
Martin thereafter filed a request for an investigation by the Jackson Civil Service Commission. The Commission conducted a hearing on October 18, 1990. Afterward, the Commission concluded that while the city had shown that Martin had been negligent at times in the performance of her duties, the city had not produced sufficient evidence to bear its burden of establishing that Martin had been terminated for "just cause." The Commission therefore ordered on October 25, 1990, "that Martin be reinstated with back pay and benefits in the appropriate amount since the date of discharge."
Anita Martin reported for work pursuant to the Commission's Order on November 12, 1990. During the period since Martin's termination, Otha Burton had resigned as Director of the Department of Human and Cultural Services. He had been replaced by Maxine Lyles. Judy Wallace had been serving as Interim Manager of the Senior Services Division. Shortly before Martin reported to Lyles on the afternoon of November 12, 1990, Lyles had called a meeting of the employees of the Senior Services Division and announced that Judy Wallace had been named permanent Manager of the Senior Services Division. When Lyles met with Martin on the afternoon on November 12, she told Martin that Martin's former position of Manager of the Senior Services Division was no longer open, and she directed Martin to report to the Director of the Smith-Robertson Museum, for whom Martin would work as a secretary.
Martin thereafter contacted her lawyer, who wrote a letter to Lyles that further court action would be initiated on behalf of Martin if she was not immediately reinstated to her former position of Manager of the Senior Services Division. Martin was advised by her lawyer to accept employment in the offered position at Smith-Robertson Museum until she was reinstated to her former post.
II
Martin subsequently filed a complaint in Hinds County Circuit Court for First Judicial District seeking enforcement of the Commission's Order. The City of Jackson filed a motion to dismiss Martin's circuit court petition on the grounds that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, the complaint failed to state a claim under which relief could be granted, and the plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her under the Civil Service laws of Mississippi.
The circuit court ruled that by virtue of the Jackson Civil Service Commission order of October 25, 1991, Anita Martin was entitled to be reinstated to her former position of Manager of the Senior Services Division of the Jackson Department of Human and Cultural Services. The court deemed this to be the only reasonable interpretation of the Civil Service Commission's directive that "Ms. Martin be reinstated ..." (emphasis added). The court therefore issued a writ of mandamus compelling the City of Jackson to reinstate Anita Martin to her original position of Manager of the Senior Services Division. The City of Jackson has appealed the entry of that writ to this Court.
This appeal presents the following issues:
1) Did the Circuit Court have jurisdiction to entertain Anita Martin's action to compel her reinstatement to her former job position?
2) Did the Circuit Court have the authority to issue an order compelling the City of Jackson to reinstate Anita Martin to the position of manager of the Senior Services Division of the Jackson Department of Human and Cultural Services?
III
The City of Jackson contends that the Mississippi Civil Service Act establishes the Civil Service Commission as the exclusive forum for deciding public employment disputes and determining whether a given municipality has complied with the mandates of the Commission. In the instant case, the Civil Service Commission ordered "that Ms. Martin be reinstated with back pay and benefits in the appropriate amount since the date of discharge." The City of Jackson contends that it complied with this order by virtue of having restored Martin to the city payroll at the same salary and benefits she would have been receiving had she never been terminated. Therefore, claims the city, Martin's dispute with the city's transfer of her to the Smith-Robertson Museum as a secretary presented a question of compliance that could only be resolved by the Civil Service Commission.
Anita Martin contends, on the other hand, that the city's actions clearly did not comply with the Commission's unambiguous mandate that Martin be "reinstated." Therefore, in her eyes, the issue was solely one of enforcement of the Civil Service Commission's order, and the circuit courts have the authority to issue writs of mandamus in such instances.
Section 21-31-71, Miss.Code Ann. (1972), has the following to say about the roles of the Civil Service Commission and the circuit courts in resolving public employment disputes:
Any person so removed, suspended, demoted, discharged or combination thereof may, within ten (10) days from the time of such disciplinary action, file with the commission a written demand for an investigation, whereupon the commission shall conduct such investigation. The investigation shall be confined to the determination of the question of whether such disciplinary action was or was not made in good faith for cause. After such an investigation the commission may, if in its estimation the evidence is conclusive, affirm the disciplinary action, or if it shall find that the disciplinary action was made for political or religious reasons, or was not made in good faith for cause, shall order the immediate reinstatement or reemployment of such person in the office, place, position, or employment from which such person was removed, suspended, demoted, discharged, or combination thereof, which reinstatement shall, if the commission so provides in its discretion, be retroactive, and entitle such person to pay or compensation from the time of such disciplinary action.... The findings of the commission shall be certified in writing to the appointing power, and shall be forthwith enforced by such officer.
The findings of the commission shall be conclusive and binding unless either the accused or the municipality shall, within thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of such judgment or order on the minutes of the commission and notification to the accused and the municipality, appeal to the circuit court of the county within which the municipality is located ... The said circuit court shall thereupon proceed to hear and determine such appeal. However, such hearing shall be confined to the determination of whether the judgment or order of removal, discharge, demotion, suspension or combination thereof made by the commission, was or was not made in good faith for cause, and no appeal to such court shall be taken except upon such ground or grounds.
Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 21-31-71 (1972). The statute is silent on what fora are appropriate for determining compliance and providing enforcement.
With respect to enforcement, though, it has long been the rule in this State that the civil courts may in certain instances exercise jurisdiction under our writ of mandamus statute to compel public officials and state agencies to perform those duties which they On the petition of the state, by its attorney general or a district attorney, in any matter affecting the public interest, or on the petition of any private person who is interested, the writ of mandamus shall be issued by the circuit court, commanding any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person to do or not do an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beasley v. City of Gulfport
...chief building official, rather than reporting to Havard Jordan for further job assignments. ¶ 18. Appellant herein relies on City of Jackson v. Martin in support of the proposition that reinstatement entitles employee to the same position and was not accomplished merely by rehiring employe......