Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; November 19, 2001; Mississippi; State Appellate Court
Carl Brandon appealed his termination as road manager of Claiborne County, Mississippi, following allegations of sexual harassment made by a female employee, Kelly Savage. Savage initially reported the harassment orally on May 6, 1997, and subsequently submitted a written complaint detailing two incidents where Brandon made advances towards her. She claimed that after refusing his advances, Brandon altered her work assignments. Brandon denied these allegations and was suspended with pay pending an investigation.
An ad hoc committee formed by the Claiborne County Board of Supervisors conducted a hearing, ultimately recommending Brandon's termination due to their belief in Savage's credibility. The Board voted to terminate him effective May 15, 1997. Following this, Brandon requested a full hearing before the Board, where he was allowed legal representation, presented evidence, and cross-examined witnesses. The Board upheld the termination.
Brandon then filed a bill of exceptions to appeal the Board's decision and also initiated a separate wrongful discharge complaint against Claiborne County and four individual supervisors, claiming bias due to his prior cooperation with a state auditor's investigation that led to some Board members' arrests. He sought reinstatement and back-pay, asserting that he was not given a fair hearing.
The cases were consolidated for trial, where a bench trial resulted in the dismissal of Brandon's claims. The trial judge found no evidence of wrongful termination or due process violations. Brandon's appeal to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi challenges the circuit court's legal conclusions and its dismissal of his wrongful discharge and due process claims based on insufficient proof.
The standard of review for appeals from decisions made by a board of supervisors is based on whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence, as established in *Wilkinson County Bd. of Supervisors v. Quality Farms, Inc.*, 767 So.2d 1007 (Miss. 2000). This standard is consistent with appeals from administrative agencies and requires that the reviewing court find the board's decision unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, beyond the agency's authority, or in violation of constitutional or statutory rights before it can be overturned. Substantial evidence is defined as relevant evidence that reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
For circuit court decisions made without a jury, the appellate court will not overturn factual determinations if substantial evidence supports them. The appellate court usually affirms such decisions unless the trial judge is deemed "manifestly wrong." The trial judge holds the sole authority to determine witness credibility.
Brandon challenges the circuit court's conclusion that he did not meet his burden of proof but fails to cite relevant authority to support his claim regarding burden allocation. Consequently, the appellate court is not obligated to address this issue, as established in various cases, including *Ratcliff v. State* and *Hewlett v. State*. Although the cited cases pertain to criminal law, the court applies the same requirement for citing authority in civil matters. Despite this, a brief discussion on the burden of proof will be provided to evaluate any potential reversible error by the circuit court.
Brandon contends that the circuit court inaccurately stated he failed to meet his burden of proof, arguing instead that the Board should have proven his wrongful termination and the provision of due process. He cites a Mississippi Supreme Court ruling indicating that challenges to board decisions should be evaluated for substantial evidence, which creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of the board's actions. Consequently, Brandon asserts he successfully rebutted this presumption regarding his termination.
Brandon raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest with Board members due to his involvement in a criminal investigation that led to some members' dismissals. However, the Board members testified individually, asserting their votes to terminate Brandon were based solely on credibility assessments of witnesses and prior incidents of sexual harassment involving him. They denied any ulterior motives tied to his cooperation with the investigation, with most stating they were unaware of his involvement at the time of the harassment claims.
The record confirms that Brandon received due process; he had a full hearing, was allowed to present rebuttals and witnesses, and could cross-examine witnesses. Brandon did not dispute these facts or provide evidence of prejudice from the Board or the circuit court's actions.
Even if his due process claims were valid, Brandon was an at-will employee without a protected property interest in his job. Under Mississippi law, county road managers serve at the pleasure of the board and can be removed by a majority vote.
Brandon argues that he falls under a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine by refusing to engage in illegal activities and reporting supervisors' misconduct to the state auditor. While such actions could typically protect against wrongful termination, the court finds that Brandon did not sufficiently prove that the Board intentionally sabotaged him. Consequently, the court concludes he remained an at-will employee, subject to termination without cause.
Brandon's dual claims presented a procedural challenge for the circuit court, which had to evaluate the truth of allegations regarding his misconduct while also addressing his retaliation claim for whistle-blowing. The court noted that appeals from the board should rely solely on existing records without introducing new evidence, contrasting with the necessity for new evidence in Brandon's wrongful termination suit. This procedural complexity was attributed to Brandon's approach. Ultimately, the circuit court's decision is upheld, with costs of the appeal assigned to him.
