State ex rel. Dept. of Prisons v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 25 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 25529,25529 |
| Citation | 111 Nev. 770,895 P.2d 1296 |
| Parties | The STATE of Nevada, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS, Appellant, v. Paul G. JACKSON; the State of Nevada, Department of Personnel, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Atty. Gen., and George Taylor, Deputy Atty. Gen., Carson City, for appellant.
Norah Ann McCoy, Carson City, for respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Paul G. Jackson was first employed by the Department of Prisons (DOP) in March of 1983 at the Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC). Over four years, he was promoted through several positions, finally reaching a mid-level management However, in August of 1991, he was served with a specificity of charges, charging him with misconduct on and off the job in violation of various provisions of the Nevada Administrative Code and various DOP regulations. These charges resulted in his termination. Two incidents were included in the specificity of charges; however, only the second incident is at issue in this appeal. This incident involved a "tour" that Jackson gave after hours on April 27, 1991, to a woman and her minor son, who were accompanied by an inmate.
position of correctional lieutenant. He generally received standard or above standard evaluations.
Jackson was charged with improperly escorting the woman to the control center, perimeter towers, and to the administration tower. Jackson claimed he gave the "tour" to the woman and her son as part of SDCC's Prison 101 Awareness Program, because the minor was a first time juvenile offender for grand theft. Jackson was partially responsible for the creation of the Prison 101 Awareness Program, which targeted youth at risk of continued criminal activity.
The four went to the education building, an inmate residential unit, the mental health lockdown, the culinary, the infirmary, and the visiting room. Later, Jackson allowed the woman's son to stay alone with the inmate at the visitors' room patio to provide a "one on one" question and answer session between the two while Jackson and the woman visited the administration tower.
Jackson took the woman to the control center and to the administration tower to obtain a bird's eye view of the institution. Access to the control center is severely restricted because sensitive prison equipment, such as keys, radios, and weapons, is kept there. The DOP administrative regulation detailing accessibility to the control center states the following: However, Jackson felt that the woman posed no security risk to the prison. According to the warden, the administration tower and the control center make up a central part of the security of the prison. Even if a visitor was not a threat, admission to the towers was strictly forbidden.
The hearing officer evaluated several instances of comparable breaches of security and unauthorized or improper visits. The hearing officer concluded that compared to the discipline meted out in other incidents, Jackson's termination was out of proportion to the facts. He pointed out that the warden himself, although not the appointing authority, felt that the DOP had not followed the principle of progressive discipline in Jackson's case. The hearing officer reversed and remanded Jackson's termination and awarded him back pay and benefits for the period of his termination.
The DOP filed a petition for judicial review. The district court denied the DOP's petition for judicial review. The court felt that the hearing officer's decision was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Secretary of State v. Tretiak
...& Tucker, 106 Nev. 96, 98, 787 P.2d 782, 783 (1990). 5. NRS 233B.135(3)(e) (emphasis added); see also State, Dep't of Prisons v. Jackson, 111 Nev. 770, 772, 895 P.2d 1296, 1297 (1995). 6. Bally's Grand Hotel & Casino v. Reeves, 113 Nev. 926, 935-36, 948 P.2d 1200, 1206 (1997) (stating that ......
-
O'Keefe v. State
...disciplinary decisions by the Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP): Knapp, 111 Nev. 420, 892 P.2d 575 ; State, Department of Prisons v. Jackson, 111 Nev. 770, 895 P.2d 1296 (1995) ; and Dredge, 105 Nev. 39, 769 P.2d 56. In Dredge, the earliest of those cases, this court explained that "[i]t ......
-
Richardson v. State ex rel. Its Dep't of Transp.
...in an employee's termination.” 105 Nev. at 42, 769 P.2d at 58; see NAC 284.650(3) ; see also State. Dep't of Prisons v. Jackson, 111 Nev. 770, 772–73, 895 P.2d 1296, 1297–98 (1995) (applying Dredge deference in the case of a security breach by a correctional officer). While there is a criti......
-
Garcia v. State Dep't of Corr., 76585-COA
...a first-time offense). Garcia appealed the NDOC's findings, prompting an administrative hearing. Applying the deference analysis provided in Jackson, Knapp, and Dredge, a hearing officer determined that, although Garcia left her post without supervisor approval, NDOC failed to present subst......