Wright v. White, 94-CA-00269-SCT
| Decision Date | 08 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-CA-00269-SCT,94-CA-00269-SCT |
| Citation | 693 So.2d 898 |
| Parties | Chauncy WRIGHT, Marjorie Ann Jones and Phyllis Renee Wright v. Dr. James O. WHITE, Dr. Alton B. Cobb, Carolyn Boatwright, Pamela Pitchford, Alicia Crowder, Tucker Brown, individual members of the State Board of Health; Mississippi State Department of Health; The State Board of Health; and Walter Booker. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Darnell Felton, Clarksdale, for Appellants.
Michael C. Moore, Attorney General, T. Hunt Cole, Jr., Sp. Asst. Attorney General, Jackson, for Appellees.
En Banc.
In this appeal, Wright seeks to reverse a final judgment entered on February 9, 1994, by the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. In that final judgment, the circuit court vacated an order in which the Employee Appeals Board purportedly "transferred" a pending state civil service employment matter to circuit court for disposition, as beyond the statutory authority of the EAB, and it dismissed the Plaintiffs' court complaint predicated on that "transfer."
Plaintiffs/Appellants Chauncy Wright, Marjorie Ann Jones, and Phyllis Renee Wright were "state service" employees whose employment with the State was governed by the statewide personnel service system (also known as the state civil service system). Miss.Code Ann. §§ 25-9-101 through 25-9-151. The state personnel system provides for a comprehensive scheme of personnel administration and sets forth an integrated system of administrative review by the Employee Appeals Board (EAB) and judicial review of adverse employment decisions of state agencies by an appeal to circuit court.
The Appellants, who resigned their employment with the State Department of Health, complained about various aspects of their employment while they were with the Department, and they alleged that their employment conditions were discriminatory, in violation In 1991 and 1992, the Plaintiffs invoked the jurisdiction of the EAB regarding their alleged employment grievances against the Department of Health by filing notices of appeal to the EAB. Re: Marjorie A. Jones, EAB Docket No. 91-65, Re: Chauncy Wright, EAB Docket No. 91-67, and Re: Phyllis Renee Wright, EAB Docket No. 92-22. An evidentiary hearing and several days of witness testimony on these causes before the EAB was partially completed, and the remaining testimony before the EAB was set for hearing on June 21-23, 1993, but was continued.
of provisions of state and federal law.
Before completing the EAB proceeding, the Appellants filed an original suit on their employment grievances in the Circuit Court of Hinds County on May 17, 1993. This was followed by an interlocutory EAB "Order of Transfer," which purported to transfer the matter to circuit court and to "forever relinquish jurisdiction" over the pending employment matter because the EAB might not be able to give full remedy and complete "resolution" of the grievances. No final decision on the merits of the grievances was rendered by the EAB.
The State Defendants promptly moved the circuit court to vacate the "order of transfer" and to dismiss the Plaintiffs' original circuit court suit, on the grounds, inter alia, that (1) under the statewide personnel system, the EAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the employment grievances of "state service" employees; (2) that the only judicial review of an EAB matter that may be obtained in circuit court is by the limited appellate review as provided by statute, not by an original suit, and (3) that the EAB did not have any statutory authority to "transfer" a pending state employment matter to circuit court for disposition.
Plaintiffs did not submit a written response to the motion. After oral argument, the circuit court on February 9, 1994, entered a final order which granted the Department of Health's motion, vacated the EAB "order of transfer," and dismissed the complaint.
On March 10, 1994, more than ten days after entry of judgment, the Plaintiffs filed a
Rule 59 motion for reconsideration and contended that the state civil service statute was unconstitutional because it was inconsistent with alleged rights under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. On the same day, Plaintiffs simultaneously filed a notice of appeal of the final judgment which transferred jurisdiction of the case to this Court and raised the following issues:
I. WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE APPEALS BOARD, PURSUANT TO ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY, CAN TRANSFER A PENDING ACTION TO A STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION BECAUSE IT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY APPELLANTS, AND
II. WHETHER APPELLANTS ARE REQUIRED TO EXHAUST THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE FILING AN ACTION IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION WHEN THEIR COMPLAINT, INTER ALIA, ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS SECURED UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND REQUESTS RELIEF OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE EMPLOYEE APPEALS BOARD.
It is the opinion of this Court that the trial court was correct in determining that the EAB lacked statutory authority to transfer a pending matter to circuit court and that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter brought before it. Therefore, it was not error for the trial court to vacate the EAB's order and dismiss the Appellants' complaint.
It is a well-settled principle that the Supreme Court is the "ultimate expositor of the law of this state." UHS-Qualicare, Inc. v. Gulf Coast Community Hospital, Inc., 525 So.2d 746, 754 (Miss.1987). Therefore, this Court conducts de novo review on questions of law. Id.; Estate of Bodman v. Bodman, 674 So.2d 1245, 1247 (Miss.1996); Rea v. Breakers Assoc., Inc., 674 So.2d 496, 499 (Miss.1996); Tucker v. Hinds County, 558 So.2d 869, 872 (Miss.1990); Harrison County v. City of Gulfport, 557 So.2d 780, 784 (Miss.1990). The questions of whether the EAB has the authority to transfer a matter to the circuit court and whether the circuit court has jurisdiction to hear such a matter are issues of law and deserve a relatively broad standard of review by this Court. Therefore, in deciding the case sub judice, we look at all the information de novo to determine if the circuit court was correct in its dismissal of the Appellants' complaint.
WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE APPEALS BOARD, PURSUANT TO ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY, CAN TRANSFER A PENDING ACTION TO A STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION BECAUSE IT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY APPELLANTS.
Appellants contend that the EAB did not have the authority to provide the requested relief and therefore, the EAB's actions were correct and reasonable in removing the employees' proceedings from the Board's jurisdiction.
The State Defendants counter, arguing that the lower court correctly held that the EAB, as an administrative body, lacked any statutory authority to order a transfer of a pending, state civil service employment matter to circuit court, and that the lower court properly vacated the EAB "Order of Transfer" and dismissed the court complaint based thereon.
The statewide system of personnel administration, established by Miss.Code Ann. Sections 25-9-101 through 25-9-151, provides for a comprehensive scheme of personnel administration with regard to "state service" employees and sets forth a carefully integrated scheme of administrative and judicial review of the adverse employment decisions of state agencies. This system establishes a structure and practice of personnel administration to ensure the fair and efficient use of employees in state service. Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-101 (Supp.1990).
As this Court noted in Hood v. Miss. Dep't of Wildlife Conservation, 571 So.2d 263, 267 (Miss.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. [§ 25-9-132(2) ] (Supp.1990). Appeal to the circuit court must be within thirty days of the board's decisions and a bond is required. [Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-132(1) (Supp.1990).]
In Hood we discussed Miss. Forestry Comm'n v. Piazza, 513 So.2d 1242 (Miss.1987), which
addresses the state civil service procedure. Piazza, 513 So.2d at 1246. An employee of the Mississippi Forestry Commission sued in chancery court to enjoin his transfer to another district. Piazza, 513 So.2d at 1243. Reversing the grant of a permanent injunction, this Court held that whether the Forestry Commission could authorize an involuntary transfer was a matter for the State Personnel Board, and its alter ego, the Employee Appeals Board. Piazza, 513 So.2d at 1249.
Hood, 571 So.2d at 268. Piazza would seem to preclude all of the Plaintiffs' claims arising from their treatment.
The EAB was wholly competent to consider every claim the Plaintiffs assert in the present complaint, including the grounds for their Section 1983 claims.
The remedial process provided such employees necessarily vests the employee's department, agency or institution, and ultimately the EAB, with full authority to hear not only the merits vel non of any charge of inefficiency or other good cause, but also any other matter of fact or law the employee may assert affecting his employment. We take Section 25-9-131(3)'s directive that the appeals procedure there provided "replace any existing statutory procedure" as declaring this the employee's exclusive remedy.
The Plaintiffs may have presented before the Department of Health and thereafter before the EAB every ground for relief they assert in the present complaint,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vicksburg Partners, L.P. v. Stephens, No. 2004-CA-01345-SCT.
...standard of review to this issue." Entergy Miss., Inc. v. Burdette Gin Co., 726 So.2d 1202, 1205 (Miss.1998) (citing Wright v. White, 693 So.2d 898, 900 (Miss.1997)). ¶ 10. This Court has recognized that arbitration is favored and firmly embedded in both our federal and state laws. Pass Ter......
-
East Mississippi State Hosp. v. Callens, 2000-CT-00258-SCT.
...such a claim raises troubling questions. Callens, at ¶ 15. ¶ 12. This Court subsequently considered a similar question in Wright v. White, 693 So.2d 898 (Miss.1997). Wright and other employees of the State Department of Health resigned, alleging that they had done so because of violations o......
-
McNeil v. Hester, No. 97-CA-00048-SCT
...court to this Court, and that the lower court is thus without authority to amend, modify, or reconsider its judgment. Wright v. White, 693 So.2d 898, 903 (Miss.1997) (citing In re Estate of Moreland, 537 So.2d 1345, 1346-47 (Miss. 1989) (when a proper appeal is taken, the case is ipso facto......
-
Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v. MS DIV. OF MEDICAID, 2001-CA-01941-SCT.
...official capacities are `persons' under § 1983." See also Lofton v. United States, 785 So.2d 287, 290 (Miss.2001); Wright v. White, 693 So.2d 898, 904-05 (Miss.1997); Lawson v. State, 784 So.2d 983, 984 (Miss.Ct.App.2001). However, if a state official was sued in his or her official capacit......