229 So. 3d 171
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- Walter Williams was public works director for Belzoni; the board voted not to renew his employment on August 6, 2013 (mayor broke 2–2 tie).
- Williams requested a hearing (Aug. 29, 2013) but no hearing occurred; he did not file a statutory appeal within ten days.
- On July 14, 2014 Williams served an MTCA notice of claim and on Oct. 29, 2014 sued the City and alderman Gary Farmer for defamation/slander and "wrongful termination."
- Defendants moved for dismissal/summary judgment arguing (1) wrongful-termination claim must have been appealed within 10 days under Miss. Code § 11-51-75, (2) City is immune from defamation under MTCA, and (3) individual claims against Farmer are time-barred.
- The circuit court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; the appellate court affirmed but modified the dismissal to be with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams could pursue a "wrongful termination" action in circuit court instead of appealing the board decision under § 11-51-75 | Williams: No final action occurred (alderman allegedly unqualified), and board induced him to delay; thus ten‑day appeal rule should not apply | Defendants: Board action was final; § 11-51-75’s ten‑day appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional; appeal is exclusive remedy | Court: § 11-51-75 applies; Williams failed to appeal within ten days; wrongful‑termination claim dismissed and dismissal should be with prejudice (exclusive remedy) |
| Whether allegations that an alderman was unqualified or the board acted "unlawfully" excuse the ten‑day appeal requirement | Williams: Board vote tainted by unqualified alderman so no final decision existed | Defendants: Allegations of unlawfulness do not suspend the statute’s time limit; action was final on its face | Court: Rejects argument; unlawful‑action allegation does not toll § 11-51-75; ten‑day limit still applies |
| Whether City is liable for Farmer’s alleged slander/defamation under MTCA | Williams: Proceeded under MTCA; seeks recovery from City and Farmer | Defendants: MTCA bars recovery against governmental entity for employee slander/defamation; City immune | Court: City immune for defamation/slander claims under MTCA § 11-46-5(2); claim against City barred |
| Whether slander/defamation claim against Farmer in his individual capacity is time‑barred | Williams: Alleged continuing defamation "throughout the year," so some statements fell within one‑year statute of limitations | Defendants: Claim accrues at the alleged August 6, 2013 statement; suit filed Oct. 29, 2014, so beyond one‑year limit | Court: Plaintiff did not present admissible, particularized evidence of defamatory acts within one year; claim against Farmer barred by the one‑year statute of limitations (and MTCA tolling does not apply to intentional torts) |
Key Cases Cited
- McArn v. Allied Bruce‑Terminix Co., 626 So.2d 603 (Miss. 1993) (defines narrow public‑policy wrongful‑termination exception)
- Newell v. Jones Cty., 731 So.2d 580 (Miss. 1999) (ten‑day appeal under § 11‑51‑75 is mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Claiborne Cty. v. Parker, 26 So.3d 1078 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (circuit court lacks jurisdiction when board appeal not timely filed)
- Malone v. Leake Cty., 841 So.2d 141 (Miss. 2003) (appeal under § 11‑51‑75 is the exclusive remedy)
- Ladner v. Arrington, 374 So.2d 831 (Miss. 1979) (each repetition of slander is a distinct cause of action)
- Chalk v. Bertholf, 980 So.2d 290 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (pleading particularity required for slander claims)
- Zumwalt v. Jones Cty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 19 So.3d 672 (Miss. 2009) (MTCA does not waive immunity for intentional torts such as defamation)
- McGehee v. DePoyster, 708 So.2d 77 (Miss. 1998) (MTCA notice provisions do not toll non‑MTCA intentional‑tort limitations)
- Hood v. Perry Cty., 821 So.2d 900 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (dismissal for failure to pursue exclusive statutory remedy should be with prejudice)
- Pratt v. City of Greenville, 918 So.2d 81 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (same)
- Lucas v. Williamson, 852 So.2d 67 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (same)