Jones v. Alcorn State University, 120 So. 3d 448

Ernest T. Jones was hired as Alcorn State University (ASU) head football coach under a fixed-term contract (Jan 2, 2008–Dec 31, 2011) that allowed termination for malfeasance, inefficiency, contumacious conduct, or for cause, with written notice and a pre-termination hearing.
ASU athletic director Darren Hamilton sent written notice alleging malfeasance and inefficiency: creating a separate fundraising account in Jones’s name, purchasing footwear from a non‑approved vendor, mishandling an $11,000 goods order, and binding ASU to hotel rooms without proper authority.
Jones requested a due‑process hearing; ASU’s Grievance Committee (three ASU employees) held a hearing where Jones could present evidence but his attorney was limited to an advisory role (no cross‑examination or presenting evidence).
The Committee recommended termination; ASU President Ross concurred and terminated Jones effective January 28, 2009. Jones sought certiorari review in circuit court, which dismissed his petition.
Jones appealed, arguing (1) constitutional/statutory violations in the termination process, (2) denial of property‑interest protections, and (3) that the termination was arbitrary and capricious.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jones was denied procedural due process/property interest	Jones: had a definite‑term contract → property interest; hearing was inadequate (attorney restricted; hearing-runner bias) → due process violation	ASU: Jones received written notice with specific charges and a pretermination hearing; counsel was informed of hearing role; hearing provided adequate opportunity to be heard	Court: No due process violation — notice and hearing satisfied constitutional requirements
Whether the Committee’s decision was arbitrary and capricious / unsupported by substantial evidence	Jones: termination lacked reason; ASU acted whimsically and without proper judgment	ASU: Committee’s findings were fact‑based and supported by evidence (fundraising account misuse, unauthorized contractual commitments, uncooperative conduct)	Court: Committee’s findings supported by record; decision was not arbitrary or capricious; certiorari denial affirmed
Whether the circuit court erred by failing to make specific findings under Rule 52(a)	Jones: circuit court recited law but failed to apply law to facts / issue-specific findings	ASU: appellate role of circuit court does not require separate findings of fact under these circumstances	Court: No error — as an appellate reviewer the circuit court was not required to make Rule 52(a) findings

Smith v. Univ. of Miss., 797 So.2d 956 (discussing administrative appellate review of university tribunals)
Van Slyke v. Bd. of Trs. of State Insts. of Higher Learning, 613 So.2d 872 (executive-branch status of state universities)
Miss. Bureau of Narcotics v. Stacy, 817 So.2d 523 (standards for certiorari review of administrative decisions)
Harris v. Miss. Valley State Univ., 873 So.2d 970 (two-step procedural due process test for public employees)
Diamondhead Country Club & Prop. Owners Assoc., Inc. v. Montjoy, 820 So.2d 676 (public-employee contracts create property interests entitled to due process)
Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. Anson, 879 So.2d 958 (definition and scope of "arbitrary and capricious")
Miss. State Dep’t of Health v. Sw. Miss. Reg’l. Med. Ctr., 580 So.2d 1238 (discussion of arbitrary and capricious standard)
Charles E. Morgan Constr. Co. v. City of Starkville, 909 So.2d 1145 (appellate courts' obligations regarding findings of fact)