Miss. Dep't of Corr. v. McClure

386 So.3d 372

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

v.Tiffany MCCLURE

NO. 2022-IA-01201-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

05/30/2024

HINDS COUNTY COUNTY COURT, HON. LARITA M. COOPER-STOKES, JUDGE

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: WILSON DOUGLAS MINOR, Jackson

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: CARSON HOLT THURMAN, JEFFERY P. REYNOLDS, Jackson, JASON MATTHEW KIRSCHBERG

BEFORE KING, P.J., COLEMAN AND BEAM, JJ.

COLEMAN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. In January 2020, Tiffany McClure worked as a probation officer. When riots broke out at the state penitentiary at Parchman, she responded to then-Corrections Commissioner Pelicia Hall’s call for extra assistance and promise of overtime pay by reporting to Parchman to help. She now alleges that the state never paid the promised wages. The present appeal is one of a series of actions filed by probation and parole officers seeking unpaid wages for their overtime work with the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The chief question before the Court is whether Mississippi courts have jurisdiction to hear state employees’ claims against their employers for breach of contract.

¶2. The Mississippi Department of Corrections attests that the Hinds County County Court erred as a matter of law by failing to dismiss McClure’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because employment-related grievances are reviewed by the Employee Appeals Board exclusively, and any non-grievable claims have no right to relief under state law whatsoever. McClure agrees that her claims are non-grievable, but she asserts that the Hinds County County Court is the only forum that can provide relief.

¶3. The Mississippi Constitution vests original jurisdiction with the circuit courts, and there are no adequate administrative remedies for McClure’s breach of contract and constitutional claims. We therefore affirm the trial court’s ruling exercising jurisdiction over the matter. Importantly, however, we note that our holding is narrowly tailored to the specific facts of the case sub judice.

BACKGROUND

¶4. In response to the deadly riots that erupted at Parchman State Penitentiary in January 2020, Pelicia Hall, then-commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, authorized the payment of overtime hours to help restore order. Tiffany McClure, who was a probation officer at the time, assisted in the efforts at Parchman, working multiple shifts from January through March 2020. McClure maintains, however, that she neither received compensation for her overtime work at Parchman nor was she reimbursed for meal expenses incurred driving the two hundred mile stretch from Hattiesburg to Parchman in Sunflower County.

¶5. In February 2021, McClure voluntarily ended her employment with the Department of Corrections and instead began working for the Petal School District. McClure’s 99.5 hours of unused medical leave were not transferred to her job in Petal. On December 13, 2021, McClure’s attorney sent a letter to the state auditor demanding payment in the sum of $2,585.69 for her alleged unpaid overtime and unreimbursed meal expenses and demanding that her 99.5 hours of unused medical leave be transferred to the Petal School District in accordance with the Mississippi State Employee Handbook. When the state auditor’s office did not respond to McClure’s demands, she filed a complaint against the Department of Corrections in the Hinds County County Court on January 14, 2022. In her complaint, McClure (1) asserted a breach of contract claim alleging that the Department violated its employment contract by failing to pay her overtime hours and reimburse her travel expenses; (2) claimed that the Department violated her constitutional rights to due process, access to courts, and the constitutional constraints of involuntary servitude and impairment of contract; and (3) sought a judgment declaring her entitlement to the 99.5 hours of unused medical leave pursuant to the Handbook.

¶6. On February 28, 2022, the Department answered McClure’s complaint and denied the salient allegations raised therein. The Department did, however, admit that McClure worked several shifts at Parchman from January through March 2020 and had to drive from Hattiesburg to Parchman. McClure served the Department with multiple written discovery requests and filed five notices of deposition, but the Department "objected to each and every request on the ground that the Hinds County County Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction." McClure then filed a motion to compel discovery and for sanctions, and she filed a motion for a judgment declaring the court’s jurisdiction over the matter. In her motion for declaratory judgment, McClure argued that the county court has jurisdiction because, as claims for breach of contract and unpaid wages are non-grievable under the Handbook, they are not subject to administrative review, so "her only possible remedy for seeking relief and obtaining the pay that [the Department] promised (and is legally obligated to pay) is through [the Hinds County County Court]."

¶7. The Department, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay all proceedings, arguing that: (1) the county court lacked jurisdiction because our Court has held that state employees’ exclusive remedy for employment- related grievances is an appeal to the Mississippi Employment Appeals Board; (2) McClure’s claims are non-grievable, meaning she has "no right under state law to seek or obtain relief from the Hinds County Court"; and (3) McClure is not entitled to have her unused medical leave transferred to Petal because she did not transfer to a state agency per the Handbook.

¶8. The Hinds County County Court held a hearing on the motions on October 20, 2022, in which it determined that it did have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. At the hearing, McClure’s counsel asserted that the list of grievances are meant for personnel matters such as transfers or demotions, etc; thus, McClure’s counsel argued that her claims, which are breach of contract and constitutional violations, fall neither in the category of a grievance nor the category of a traditional non-grievable personnel offense because the Employment Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction over the claims and cannot provide relief. In response, the Department asserted that, pursuant to Mississippi Department of Public Safety v. Smith, 243 So. 3d 172, 176 (¶ 18) (Miss. 2018), the Court has held that a non-grievable matter is a matter in which the employee has no right to seek relief or appeal. The Department noted some public policy concerns that Mississippi courts will "be flooded with lawsuits filed by state employees who can’t get relief – who have nongrievable claims, which are a lot of state employees." In rebuttal, McClure’s counsel noted that there will only be a flood of lawsuits if the Department continues not paying their employees’ earned wages and that public policy favors properly compensating probation and parole officers.

¶9. The county court ultimately denied the parties’ motions and stayed discovery "pending the resolution of the subject matter jurisdiction issue through either the appellate process in [one of the five nearly identical claims brought by other officers against the Department] or by the Mississippi Supreme Court’s disposition of the interlocutory appeal to be filed in this matter." The Department subsequently filed a petition for interlocutory appeal on November 28, 2022, which the Court granted on May 16, 2023.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

¶10. The Department raises the following issues for the Court’s interlocutory review:

1. Does the Hinds County Court have subject matter jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by state employees against their employer when their claims are non-grievable under state law?

2. Does [McClure] fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted regarding the transfer of her medical leave to the Petal School District?

McClure poses an additional constitutional issue for the Court to consider:

If neither [the Employment Appeals Board] nor Mississippi courts have jurisdiction to hear state employee breach of contract claims, whether the resulting lack of a remedy violates the Mississippi Constitution’s: due process rights (Article III, § 14); protections against impairment to contract (Article III, § 16); rights to remedy an injury (Article III § 24); rights to access courts (Article III, § 25); and protections against involuntary servitude (Article III, § 15).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1, 2] ¶11. The Court reviews a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Cath. Diocese of Jackson v. De Lange, 341 So. 3d 887, 891 (¶ 14) (Miss. 2022) (quoting Schmidt v. Cath. Diocese of Biloxi, 18 So. 3d 814, 821 (¶ 13) (Miss. 2009)). "When considering a motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and the motion should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff will be unable to prove any set of facts in support of his claim." Tiger Prod. Co., LLC v. Pace, 353 So. 3d 429, 433 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Weill v. Bailey, 227 So. 3d 931, 934-935 (¶ 14) (Miss. 2017)).

DISCUSSION

I. Whether the Hinds County County Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear McClure’s breach of employment contract and constitutional claims against her agency employer, the Mississippi Department of Corrections.

¶12. The Court holds that Mississippi law grants subject matter jurisdiction to the county court. Alternatively, because there is no adequate remedy for McClure’s breach of employment contract claim, the Hinds County County Court correctly exercised its original jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, the Hinds County County Court’s ruling is affirmed.

[3–6] ¶13. "Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must be determined before a court may proceed to the merits."...