The applicable standard of review may be found in Tillmon v.Miss. State Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1020-21 (Miss. 1999): This Court generally accords great deference to the agency's interpretation of its own rules and statutes which govern its operation.
¶ 30. The standard of review on a decision of an administrative agency by an appellate court is found in Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep't ofHealth, 749 So.2d 1017 (Miss. 1999): This court generally accords great deference to the agency's interpretation of its own rules and statutes which govern its operation.
¶ 17. The standard of review on a decision of the Employee Appeals Board by a circuit court is found in Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep'tof Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1020-21(Miss. 1999): This court generally accords great deference to the agency's interpretation of its own rules and statutes which govern its operation.
This issue was brought to this Court in a 1999 case, but it was not decided because the State failed to cross-appeal the award of attorneys' fees. Tillmon v. Mississippi Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1018 (Miss. 1999). However, the award of attorneys' fees by the EAB in Tillmon was allowed to stand because of a procedural bar.
When reviewing an administrative agency's decision, this Court is limited in its review and will only determine “whether or not the order of the administrative agency (1) was unsupported by substantial evidence, (2) was arbitrary or capricious, (3) was beyond the power of administrative agency to make, or (4) violated some statutory or constitutional right of the complaining party.” Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1021 (¶ 15) (Miss.1999). “Substantial evidence means something more than a ‘mere scintilla’ or suspicion.” Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Marquez, 774 So.2d 421, 425 (¶ 13) (Miss.2000).
See Wightman, 84 F.3d at 190 (finding that federal plaintiff would be able to raise his constitutional and procedural claims in the state investigatory hearing and in subsequent appeals where no state agency rules or statutes either prevented him from presenting or a panel or court from considering his constitutional claims); Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Miss. Div. of Medicaid, 853 So.2d 1192, 1211 (Miss. 2003) (holding that "when there is not a statutory plan for appeal from a state board or agency's decision and the aggrieved party does not have an adequate remedy at law, jurisdiction to review of [sic] the board or agency's decision lies with the chancery court") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Tillmon v. Mississippi State Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1020–21 (Miss. 1999) (explaining that issues proper for consideration on appeal from administrative agency include whether there was a violation of some statutory or constitutional right of the complaining party). All American argues in response that it cannot possibly know whether it will have an adequate opportunity to raise its constitutional challenges in the state proceedings since the Department has failed to promulgate any rules or regulations for the conduct of its hearings.
This Court will affirm an administrative agency's decision unless it “(1) was unsupported by substantial evidence, (2) was arbitrary and capricious, (3) was beyond the power of administrative agency to make, or (4) violated some statutory or constitutional right of the complaining party.” Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Miss. Div. of Medicaid, 853 So.2d 1192, 1202 (Miss.2003) (quoting Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Miss.1999)). I observe that a decision that is arbitrary and capricious is necessarily unsupported by substantial evidence.
"[A]n agency's rule-making power does not extend to the adoption of regulations which are inconsistent with actual statutes." Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1023 (Miss. 1999) (citing State ex rel. Pittman v. Miss. Public Serv. Comm'n, 538 So.2d 367, 373 (Miss. 1989)).
See Miss. Empl. Sec. Comm'n v. Culbertson, 832 So.2d 519, 529-30 (Miss. 2002) ("the EAB clearly had the authority to award promotions and back pay"); Shird v. Miss. State Dep't of Health, 785 So.2d 275, 279 (Miss. 2001) ("[t]he Court of Appeals erred in not reversing and remanding this case to the EAB with directions to declare two vacancies at the Psychologist I position . . . so that Cummins and Shird may properly be considered for the positions under the rules of the State Personnel Board"); Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1022 (Miss. 1999) ("[b]y the plain reading of [Mississippi Code Annotated Section 25-9-131[]], it is easily inferred that the EAB has the authority to declare the position vacant"). Therefore, this Court agrees with the circuit court that "this issue should be remanded back to the EAB for clarification of" what pay increase(s) and/or advancement(s) were offered and granted to DHS-Social Workers similarly situated to McNeel but for her termination, and determine what, if any, pay increase(s) and/or advancement(s) McNeel would have been entitled to receive.
This issue was brought to this Court in a 1999 case, but it was not decided because the State failed to cross-appeal the award of attorneys' fees. Tillmon v. Miss. Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1018 (Miss. 1999). However, the award of attorneys' fees by the EAB in Tillmon was allowed to stand because of a procedural bar.