Two cases that Southwick participated in as a state judge formed the primary basis for the groups' charges. In the first case, Richmond v. Mississippi Department of Human Services, Southwick joined the majority opinion upholding the decision of the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board to reinstate a white state employee (Richmond) who was fired for a single incident of referring to a black co-worker as a "good ole nigger" outside of the co-worker's presence. When the black co-worker was informed of Richmond's comment, Richmond immediately apologized, and her apology apparently was accepted. The Appeals Board's decision to reinstate Richmond was based, in part, on a hearing officer's opinion that the slur was only "somewhat derogatory" and "was in effect calling the individual a 'teacher's pet.'". Bound by law to affirm a decision of the Appeals Board supported by substantial factual evidence, the court held it had no authority to set aside the findings in this case, even though Richmond's remark was "undoubtedly ill-advised and indicative of a rather remarkable insensitivity.". On writ of certiorari, the Mississippi Supreme Court agreed that "the unique circumstances of this case do not warrant imposition of the ultimate penalty of dismissal." However, the court found the record was insufficient to uphold the Employee Appeals Board's decision that Richmond effectively receive no penalty whatsoever. It decided to remand the case "in order for the board to impose an appropriate penalty less than dismissal, or to make detailed findings as to why no penalty should be imposed." The second case often cited by Southwick's critics is S.B. v. L.W., an 8-2 decision upholding a chancellor's decision to grant sole custody of an eight-year-old girl to her father, in part because the mother was a lesbian who had lived with several different partners during the child's life. Southwick joined the majority opinion as well as a concurrence written by Judge Payne which states, in part: ¶ 33. I do recognize that any adult may choose any activity in which to engage; however, I also am aware that such person is not thereby relieved of the consequences of his or her choice. It is a basic tenet that an individual's exercise of freedom will not also provide an escape of the consequences flowing from the free exercise of such a choice. As with the present situation, the mother may view her decision to participate in a homosexual relationship as an