## Facts

- Cindy W. King worked for about twenty years as a civilian employee of the Mississippi Military Department (MMD) and supervised the Environmental Office at Camp Shelby.
- In 2015, the Adjutant General appointed an investigating officer to examine whether King used nonpublic information obtained through her position to obtain a personal benefit by purchasing land near Camp Shelby.
- The investigation concluded King willfully violated Mississippi’s ethics/conflict-of-interest statute, and the Adjutant General terminated her employment “for cause,” effective immediately, invoking statutory authority allowing removal at his discretion.
- King appealed her termination to the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board (EAB).
- The MMD moved to dismiss, asserting the EAB lacked jurisdiction because the Adjutant General’s removal authority is discretionary and not reviewable by the EAB.
- The EAB dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the circuit court affirmed; King appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether King was a “state-service” employee entitled to appeal her termination to the EAB under the Mississippi State Personnel System statutes.
2. Whether, even if King qualified as “state service,” the Adjutant General’s statutory discretion to remove MMD employees precluded EAB review and jurisdiction.
3. What level of judicial deference, if any, courts should give to Mississippi administrative agencies’ interpretations of statutes under the state constitution’s separation of powers.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment upholding the EAB’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court held that, even assuming King could qualify as “state service,” the Adjutant General’s removal decisions under Miss. Code Ann. § 33-3-11(a) are not subject to EAB review.
- The Court held that Mississippi courts will no longer give binding or presumptive deference to administrative agencies’ interpretations of statutes; statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo as a judicial function.

## Legal Principles

- A specific statute granting an appointing authority discretion to remove employees can override general state-personnel appeal provisions and bar EAB review of termination decisions made under that specific authority.
- For the Mississippi Military Department, the Adjutant General’s discretion to remove employees under Miss. Code Ann. § 33-3-11(a) is not reviewable by the EAB.
- Under Mississippi’s constitutional separation of powers, courts must independently interpret statutes; agency statutory interpretations may be considered only as nonbinding argument, not as entitled to deference.

## Conclusion

The court concluded the EAB lacked jurisdiction to review a termination by the Adjutant General under the Military Department’s discretionary-removal statute, and it simultaneously rejected any doctrine requiring judicial deference to agency statutory interpretations, requiring de novo judicial interpretation instead.


King v. Miss. Mil. Dep’t, 245 So. 3d 404 (Miss. 2018)