### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE Fe br ua ry 17, 200 5 S es sio n

CIT Y OF MORRIS TOW N v. REBE CCA A. LONG

Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Ham blen Coun ty No. 2003-64 Ben K . Wexler , Chancellor

No. E2004-01545-COA- R3-CV - F ILED MARCH 31, 2005

The a ppellant was discharg ed fr om her job by the Cityof Morristown ba sed upon alleg ations that she participated in the use, posse ssion, sale and distribution of marijuana in violation of the City ’s po lic y a g a ins t il le g a l dr

ug s in the wo rk

pla c e . Sh e app lie d fo r un e mpl oyme nt be ne fi ts a nd he r c la im was de nied. She appe aled the de nial of bene fits and both the Appea ls Tribunal and the Board of Review of the Em ploy ment Security Division of t he Te nnessee Depa rtment of L abor a nd Workforce Deve lopment ruled that she wa s elig ible for une mploy ment benef its because the Cityfailed to prove th e a ll e g e d il le g a l dru g a c ti v it y

. T h e tria l c o u r t r e v e r s e d th e d e c is io n o f th e B o ar d o f

Re v ie w

. We hold that the trial court e x cee ded its authority under the applicable standard of revie w, and therefor e,

we r ever se the judg ment of the trial c ourt and re mand.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt

of t he Cha nc e r y C our t R e ve r se d; Ca use Rem anded

S HAR ON G. LEE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY and P A T R IC IA C O T T RE LL , J J ., joined.

P. Ri char d Talley , Dandridge , Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llant, Rebecc a A. L ong

Pau l G

. Su mm e r s , A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d Re p o r te r , a n d Wa rr e n A

. Ja s p e r , A s s is tan t Attorney Gene ral, Na shville, T en nessee , for the A ppellee, James G. Ne ely , Commi ssioner, Tenne ssee Depa rtment of L abor a nd Workforce Deve lopment

L ori L . J essee , Morristown, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llee, City

of Morristown

OP IN ION

On o r ab o u t O c to b e r 7
, 2 0 0 2
, th e ap p e ll a n t, Re b e c c a A

. L o n g , w a s te r mi n a te d f r om her employ ment with the Tax Offic e of the appellee Cityof Morristown (he reina fter “ the City ”) upon

c h ar g e s t h a t s h e h a d v i o l a t e d t h e C i t y’ s p o l i c y r e g ar d i n g i l l e g a l d ru g s i n t h e w o rkp l a c e

. T h i s p o l i c y, established pursua nt to Tenn. Code Ann. §50-9- 101, et seq, pr ov ide s th a t “ [i]t is a vio la tio n o f C ity-2-

p o l i cyfo r a n y

em p l o y ee t o u s e, p o s s es s , s el l
, t ra d e, o ff er t o s al e [ s i c]
, o r of

fe r t o b u y i l l ega l d ru gs or otherw ise eng ag e in the illeg al use of dr ug s on or off the job.”

Evidence supporting the City ’s alleg ations ag ainst Ms. L ong was appare ntly g ather ed during the cour se of an investi g ation with respe ct to missing Cityfunds. Shortly afte r she wa s discharg ed, Ms. L ong submitt ed a claim for unemploy ment compensa tion to the Tennessee Department of L abor and Workforc e De velopment (he reina fter “ the Ag ency ”). H oweve r, this claim was de nied by the Ag ency pursuant to Tenn. Code A nn. § 50-7-303 upon a finding of work r elated misconduc t. The Ag e nc y ’s de c isi on , d a te d O c tob e r 2 8, 20 02 , p ro vid e s in pe rt ine nt p art a s f oll ow s:

CL AIMANT WAS DI SCHARGED FROM MOST RECENT W OR K F OR VI OLATI ON OF

POL I CI ES ON INTOXI CANTS. T HE E MPL OYER HAD ADVI SED ALL

EMPL OYEES OFTHE POLI CI ES REL ATI VE TO I N T O X I C A N T S

. C L A I M A N T D I D S I G N T H E D R U G F R E E W O R K P L A CE P O LI C Y

. C L

A I M A N T W A S AWA RE T HA T V I OLAT I ON S OF TH I S PO L I CY WOUL D RESUL T IN DIS CI PL I NARY ACTI ON UP TO AN D INCL UDING TERMI NATI ON. C L

AIMANT’S ACTI ONS WERE W I TNESSED BY O THER P E R S O N N E L.

SI NCE THE C L AIMANT W AS AWARE OF THE C OMPANY P OL I CI ES ON I NTOXI CANTS AND VI OLATED SUCH, THE A GENCY FI NDS WORKREL ATED M I SC O N D U CTU N D E R T E N N E SS E ECO D EA N NOTATE D 50-7- 303 AND B ENEF I TS ARE DENIED.

The re fer ence d Code section, Te nn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303, provides at subsection (a) (2) that unemploy ment benef

its shall be denied upon a finding that the claimant ha s been discha rg ed fr om his or he r m os t r e c e nt w or

k f or wo rk -r e la te d mi sc on du c t.

Ms. L ong appea led the Ag ency ’s dec ision to t he Ag ency ’s Appea ls Tribunal on October 31, 2002. Ba sed upon the following finding s and conc lusions, the Appeals Tribuna l re v ersed the Ag ency ’s dec ision:

After car efully considering the testimony and the e ntire re cord in the c ase, the Ap p ea l s T ri b u n al m ak es t h e f o l l o wi n g:

F I ND I NG S OF

F AC T: Cla ima nt ’s mos t r e c e nt e mpl oyme nt p ri or to f ili ng thi s claim was with the City of Morristown from September 14, 1998, until October 7
, 2 0 0 2
, a s a

r e v e n u e o f

f i c e r

. T h e c i t y

b e c a m e a w ar e o f

a m i s s i n g d e p o s i t

. It b e g a n s e ar c h i n g f

o r t h e d e p o s i ta n d f

o u n d o t h e r

p r o b l e m s w i t h i t s f

i n a n c e s

. It turned the ma tter over

to the police. The police questioned the claimant, her coworke rs, and he r friends at work. Sometime during its i n v es t i gation, the police discovere d that the use of dr ug s was invol ved with the people it questioned. Two employ ees a dmitted to drug use during the investig ation. One a dmi t ted to the-3-

police that she had bought drug s from the c laimant and had paid for them at wor k. One employ e e a d mi tt e d to th e p o li c e to s e e in g d ru g s a t w o rk a n d h e ar ing

conver sations about it, but she denied using dr ug s herse lf. These three employ ees had neve r told the city

about what they

had obser ved at work prior to being asked about the fina ncial problems. They all pointed out that the claimant had use d marijuana , sold it at work, arr ang ed to buy it at w ork, and that her boy friend use d drug s. The poli ce did not question the claimant about drugs. The police re ported its fi nd ing s to the e mpl oy e r. Th e e mpl oy e r d isc ipl ine d th e other e mpl oy e e s in various way s. The employ er te rminated the claimant without talking to he r about the dr ug iss ue . It te rm inate d th e c la ima nt r a the r tha n d isc ipl ini ng he r b e c a us e it

was re ported that she had drug s on city property and had of

fer ed it for sa le. The employ er has a drug policy

. I t ha s adopted the Drug Fr ee Workplace P o l i cy codified at TCA 50- 9-100 et seq. The employ er also informs its e mploy ees tha t it can terminate an e mploy ee f or beha vior awa y from wor k that bring s dishonor to themselves or the e mploy er. Since her termination, the claimant has denied a ny

c on ne c tio n w ith dr

ug s to the e mpl oy e r. Th e e mpl oy e r a sk e d th e c la ima nt t o

su bmi t to a

dr ug te st. Th e c la ima nt d id s o. Th e te st w a s n e g a tiv e fo r dru g s.

CO NC L USI ON S OF L AW: Th e Ap pe a ls Tr ibu na l hold s the c la ima nt i s e lig ibl e for be nefits. The iss u e i s whether the employ er te rminated the c laimant for

m i s co n duct, ac cording to TCA 50-7-303(a )(2) . The e vidence establishes the employ er te rminated the e mplo y ee for violating its drug policy . Although the employ er’ s witnesses have testified t he cla imant did use drug s and wa s involved in selling drug s, t h e cl ai m an t ’s drug test shows she was not using drug s or involved with drug s. Even assuming the employ er proved the claimant has use d drug s, it has failed to prove the claimant’s actions wer e so differ ent t hat the other employ ees involved tha t she deserved termin at i on, while they rec eived a

lesser p u n is h me n t. T w o o f th e m h a d u s e d d ru g s , a n d o n e te s ti f ie d s h e p a id f

or it at work. She pa id the claimant for the drug s. I n o t h er wo rds s he wa s the second party to a drug transa ct i o n at work, y et she wa s not terminated. The other ha d ob se rv e d d ru g s a ndov e rh e arddr ug de a ls, bu t none of

the m ha d e ve r r e po rt e d th is at all bef ore the issue conce rning the lost money surfa ced. Misconduct is an act by an employ ee that brea ches a duty the employ ee ow es the employ er. The employ er ha s the burden of proof in this matter. Using drug s at

wo rk or be ing inv olv e d w ith the m in vio la tio n o f the e mpl oy e r’ s p oli c y is misconduct . The e mploy er ha s failed to prove the claimant use d drug s or was inv olv e d w ith dr

ug s a t w or

k o r a way fr om w or

k. Ev e n if

it h a d, it has fai led t o pr ov e the c la ima nt’ s a c tio ns we re a br e a c h o f d uty

de se rv ing te rm inatio n, wh ile the other e mploy ees involved did not bre ach a dut y an d d i d not deserve termination.

The Ci ty appea led the dec ision of the Appea ls Tribunal to the Ag ency ’s B oard of Review. After hearing the testimonyof witnesse s an d re viewing other e vidence in the case , the B oard of-4-

Review de termined that the Appeals Tribunal was corr ect in it s findings of fac t and application of law and the Tribunal’s dec ision in favor of Ms. L ong was a ffirme d

. T h e Bo ard of Review’s de cision pr ov ide s a s f

oll ow s:

FINDINGS OF F ACT: The cla imant’s most re ce n t employ ment prior to filing this claim for benef

its wa s as a r evenue office r for the Cityof Morristown fr om September 14, 1998 until Octobe r 4, 2002.

The e mploy er discove red tha t there w ere two missing deposit s “f ro m the offic e that (the c laimant) wor k ed in” totalling a pproxi mately

$18,000.00 and “turned

every thing we had over to the Morristown Police Depa rtment.” During the police investigation, “statements came out conce rning the use of dr ug s.” One co-w orker

e mp lo y e d as a se cre tary

in the Citypolice depa

rtment’s nar cotics division reported that the claimant ha d smoked marijuana a couple of m onths prior while the two

wer e aw ay

from the wor

kplace on a lunch br eak and that she had g iven the claimant money

at the wor

kplace that the claimant wa s to use to buy marijuana

for her ( the co- worke r). Anothe r co- worke r who worked in the same office with the claimant reported that the claimant ha d had marijuana at the w orkplac e, used the “c i t y ’s t el ep h o n e t o arra n ge t ra n s ac t i o n s ” t o p u rc h as e m ar i j u an a, an d h ad l ar ge amount s o f c a s h in h e r p u r s e a t th e w o rkp la c e

. T h e c laim a n t d e n ie d th e coworke rs re ports and i n s i s t ed that she did not use marijuana. The claimant complie d w ith th e e mp lo y e r ’ s r e q u e s t th a t s h e ta k e a d ru g te s t an d a

Se p te mb er 30, 2003 drug test report show ed neg ative re sults for drug s, including ma rijuana. The c laimant was subseque ntly discharg ed ef

fec tive October

4, 2002 for violation

o f t h e e m p l o ye r ’ s “ d ru g f

r e e w o rkp l a c e p o l i c y. ” In a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h a tp o l i c y, “(I )t is a violation of Citypolicy for a ny employ ee to use, poss ess, s ell, trade , offe r t o s el l
, o r of

fe r t o b u y i l l ega l d ru gs o r o t h er wi s e e n gage i n t h e i l l ega l u s e o f d ru gs

on or of f the job .” Th e po lic y

fu rthe r i nd ic a te d th a t vi olatio ns “ are su bje c t to disciplinary

action up to and including termination.”

The c laimant filed a g rieva nce w ith her depa rtment head and t hat g rieva nce w as denied. She then soug ht a hearing befor e the city administrator who uphe ld her termination. The c o-worke r working in the sa me offic e as the claimant wa s disci p li n e d b y

th e e mp lo y e r

b u t m a in tain e d e mp lo y me n t. T h e o th e r c o

- w o rk er who worke d as a secr etary in the narc otics department was suspende d without pay for two wee ks and then transfe rre d to another department and place d on probation for a period of six mont hs. During the police investig ation, the chief of police indicated to that employ ee that he would “wor k ag ainst her being terminated” and “do what he could to maintain her employ ment.” The city administrator off ere d that the police chief’s approac h in obtaining information from that co- worke r wa s

“ ty pic a l of what th e po lic e de pa rt me nt u se s in c ri min a l in ve sti g a tio ns .” Th e c ity administrator discussed the matter with the police chie f who be lieved that he ha d-5-

“fe lt like had said to (the co-w orker ) that he would work with he r to try for her not to lose her e mploy ment.”

CONCL USI ONS OF L

AW: The Boa

rd finds that the claimant wa s discharg ed but does not find the evidenc e suff icient to establish misconduct within the meaning of TCA § 50-7-303( a)( 2). The claimant was discharg ed amid alleg ations that she violated the employ er’ s “drug -fr ee w orkplac e policy .” The c laimant has consistently

denied those a lleg ations. T wo of the c o-worke rs alleg ing the claimant’s c onduct provided te stimonybefor e t h e Board. T he cla imant has sp e c ulate d th a t he r o ff

ic e c o- wo rk e r m a y

ha ve pr ov ide d u ntr

uth fu l st a te me nts in the inv e sti g a tio n “ pe rh aps be c a us e (s he ) w or ke d w ith in ( the c la imant’s) department.” Such motivation t o d iscredit the c laimant, particula rly g iven the unde r lyin g in v e s ti g a ti o n c o n c e r n in g th e mi s s in g mo n ie s , is n o t i mp la u s ible. Ta kin g that po ssi bil ity

int o a c c ou nt, oth e r c re dib le e vid e nc e pr e se nte d in thi s c a se shows disputed te stimonybetwee n the claimant a nd the other c o-worke r. I nformation fr om that other co- worke r wa s obtained using an appr oach “ typical of wha t the police depa

rtment uses i n crimi nal investig ations.” Given all the

c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e B o ar d d o e s n o t f i n d th e e v i d e n c e a s p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e nt t o

rea sonably

establish conduct by the claimant in viol ation of the e mploy er’ s drug po lic ie s.
That finding notwithstanding, h o we v er, the Boa rd notes the inequa lityof disciplinary action applied to the c laimant, who was discha rg ed althoug h deny ing the al leg ations prese nted, and the na rcotics de partment sec reta ry , who was suspended a lthough a dmitti ng a violation of the employ er’ s drug policy . Given that in e qu a lit y , the B oa

rdfi nd s th a t it

c a nn ot b e sa id that th e c la ima nt’ s c on du c t, even if as alleg ed, should war

rant a finding of misconduct in this case.

DE CI SI ON : Th e pr e vio us de c isi on of the B oa rd of Re vie w that app ro ve d t his claim is aff

irmed.

On De c e m b e r

9
, 2 0 0 3
, t h e C i t y

f i l e d a p e t i t i o n p u r s u a n tt o T e n n

. C o d e A n n

. § 5 0

- 7 -3 04 (i ) in the Cha ncer y Co urt for Ha mbl e n Co un ty

fo r j ud ic ia l r e vie w o f the de c isi on s o f the Ap pe a ls Tribu na l and B oa

rd of Re vie w. Th e pe tit ion state s th a t r e vie w i s so ug ht u po n th e fo llo wi ng g ro un ds :

(I ). Rig hts of

the City ha ve be e n p re

jud ic e d b e c a us e the a dmi nis tr a tiv e fi nd ing s, inf e re nc e s, c on c lus ion s a nd de c isi on s are un su pp orte d by e vid e nc e wh ic h is b oth substantial and material in light of the e nti re recor d and (ii) the de cision of the Ag encyand it s re vi ewi ng bo di es i s arbi tr ary , cap ri cio us , ch aract eri z ed b y an abuse of di scre tion and/or a clea rly unwar rante d exercise of

discretion and is ba sed upon

e rr on e ou s f

a c tua l a ndle g a l c on sid e ratio ns a ndc on c lus ion s.-6-

By judgme nt and accompanying memorandum opi nion, the t rial court reve rsed the de cisions of the Ag ency

Appea ls Tribunal and B oard of Review a nd denied Ms. L on g h er requeste d

un e mpl oy me nt b e ne fi ts. Th e re a ft e r, Ms. L on g fi le d h e r n oti c e of app e a l to thi s Co urt.

The sole issue we addre ss is whether
, under the applicable standard of revie w, the trial c ourt

err ed in re versing the dec isions of the Ag ency ’s Appea ls Tribunal and B oard of Review.

Tenn. Code Ann. §50- 7-304(i) pr ovides that, upon proper application, the Chanc ery Court may revie w an Ag ency

decision under

the following standard:

(2) The chanc ellor may

affi rm t h e decision of the boar d or the c hance llor may

r e v e r s e , r e ma n d o r mo d if y th e d e c is io n if th e r ig h ts o f th e p e ti ti o n e r h ave be en prejudice d beca

use the a dminist rative fi ndings, infe renc es, conc lusions or decisions ar e: (A ) In v iol a tio n o f c on sti tut ion a l or statut ory pr ov isi on s; ( B ) In e x c e s s o f

t h e s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y o f t h e a g e n c y; (C) Made upon unlawful proc edure ; (D) A rbitrary

or ca pri cious or cha

rac terized by

abuse of discretion or clea rly unwar rante d exercise of

discretion; or (E) U nsupported by

evidenc e which is both substantial and mate rial in the light of the rec ord. (3 ) In d e te rm ini ng the su bs ta ntialit y of e vid e nc e , th e c ha nc e llo r s ha ll t ake int o

acc ount whateve r i n the re cord f airly detra cts from its weig ht, but the chance llor shall not substitut e the chance llor’s judgment f or that of the board of review as
to the w eight of the evidence on questions of fact. No de c isi on of the bo ardsh a ll be re verse d, rema nded or modified by the chancellor unless for er rors whic h aff

ect the merits of the f

inal d ec ision of the board. Such pe tition for judicial review sh a ll b e he ardby

thec ha nc e llo r e ith e r at te rm tim e or va c a tio n a s a ma tte r o f rig ht, any other statute of t his state t o the contrary notwithstanding. (E mphasis added)

I n acc ord with this statute, the Tennesse e Supreme C ourt has indicate d that an ag ency ’s fac tual determinations s h o u l d b e upheld by a re viewing court if supporte d by “substantial and materia l evidence ” defined as “ such re levant evide nce a s a re asonable mind might acc ept to support

a rational conclusion and such a s to furnish a re asonably s o u n d basis for the a ction under consideration.” S outhern Ry. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization
, 682 S.W .2d 196, 199 (Tenn. 1984)

.

We b a se ou r a na ly sis of

the tr ia l c ou rt ’s de c isi on in thi s ca se up on re c itatio ns se t forth i n it s memorandum opinion. The opinion re -states the previously noted g rounds which the Cityasserted in s up po rt

of its app lic a tio n f

or jud ic ia l r e vie w a ndc on tin ue s a s f oll ow s:

15. L ong was ter

minated by the C ity in October 2002, [for] violation of t he City ’s p o l i ci es re l at i n g t o i l l ega l d ru gs

. E v i d en ce o f d ru g i n v o l v em en tb y L o n g-7-

wa s d isc ov e re d b y

the City du ri ng a n in ve sti g a tio n o f m iss ing fu nd s f ro m th e City tax office whe re L ong was em ploy ed. The Cityprese nted testimony befor e the ag ency a n d it s r e v ie w in g b o d ie s , o f thr e e c o w o rk e r s o f L o n g , w h o te s ti f ie d that L ong used marijuana

during work hours, sold ma rijuana to at le ast one c oworke r, collecte d pay ment for illeg al substance s during wo rk i n g hours at her place of employ ment with the City
, and possessed ma rijuana during w orking hours at her place of emplo yme nt. This testim ony was pre sented live, a nd by written statement establi s h ed t hat L ong violated the City illega l drug policies by possessing

mari jua na , u sin g mari

jua na , o ff e ri ng mari juana fo r sa le to oth e r C ity e mpl oy e e s,

a nddis tr ibu tin g mari

jua na to o the r City e mpl oy e e s. She wa s te rm inate d o n th is basis in October

2002.

16. L ong denied al l t h e al leg ations of her cowor kers a nd relied upon a neg ative drug test as her

only defe nse to the above alleg ations. She prese nted no witnesses and pr esente d no proof other than her persona l speculation that t he

cowor kers that testified f

abric ated a ll this marijuana evidenc e to the Morristown Police during the missing money investi gat i o n . One of

the cowor

kers that testified was not e mploy ed at the t ax office a nd had no conne ction to any pending investigation of money

missing from the ta x office , and ther e had be en seve ral day s that had elapsed between the a dminist ration of the dr ug test and the time the

a lle g e d d ru g us e by

L on g a s te sti fi e d to by he r co wo rk e r. Us ua lly mari juana on ly stay s in the blood sy stem of a marijuana user some 20 to 25 day s. The evide nce by the c ow or

ke r wa s sh e us e d ma

ri juana in l a te Au g us t a ndthe dr ug te st w a s in late September

the neg ative drug test d i d not refute the alleg ations of drug po sse ssi on , d ru g sa le a nddr ug dis tr ibu tio n to oth e r c ity e mpl oy e e s.
17. The City

asserts that the weig ht of the evide nce e stabli s h es that the Cityterminated L ong for miscond u ct connected with wor k. I t is the Cit y ’s position that the decision(s) of t he Appe als Tribunal a nd the B oard of Review of the Ag ency

are ag ainst the weig ht of substantial and material evidenc e establishing misconduc t conn ec ted with work by L ong and such de cision(s) ar e not supported by

substantial and material evidenc e in light of the entire rec ord.

18

. I n ad d i t i o n , t h e A g e n c y ’ s l e g a l a n d f a c t u a l a n a l y s i s i s i n e rr o r a s it rela tes to considerations of t he punis hment of cow orker s who provided testimony of L ong ’s drug involvement. Respectf ully , the Cityasserts that disciplin a ry action taken by it with respect to employ ees othe r than L o n g was not germane to the issue befor e the A gency

and its review ing bodie s in determining whether L ong was terminated for misconduc t connec ted with work. Such considerations were not releva nt to the de termination of the issues befor e the Ag ency and its review ing bodies and/or we re g iven inordinate w eig ht in reac hing this de cision and thus

c on sti tut e a nd contr ibu te d to a de c isi on wh ic h is arb itr ary , c apric iou s,-8-

char acte rized by

abuse of discretion an d /or a c lear ly unwar rante d exercise of discretion.

19 . T he B oa

rdof Re vie w, in i ts c on c lus ion s o f law st ate s as f oll ow s: “Given a ll the circums t ance s the Boa rd does not find the e vidence as pre sented sufficie nt to reasona

bly establish conduct by

the claimant in v i o l at i o n of the employ ees [sic] drug policie s.”

“Tha t finding notwithstanding, however, the Boa rd not es the inequa lityof disciplinary

action applied to the claimant who was discha rg ed althoug h deny ing the alleg ation prese nted, and the na rcotics de partment sec reta ry , who was suspended a lthough admitting a violation of the employ er’ s drug policy . Given that inequity , the B oard f ind s t h at it cannot be sa id that the claimants [sic] conduct, e ven if a s alleg ed, should war rant a finding of misconduct in this case.” I t is alleg ed in this case and ther e is some evidenc e that L ong used marijuana used marijuana during working hours, sold marijuana to a cowor ker, rec eived pa y ment for marijuana durin g working hours at her plac e of e mploy ment and possessed

mari jua na du ri ng wo rking ho ur s a t th e ir pla c e of e mpl oyme nt, a ll o f the abo ve is in v iol a tio n o f the City ’s ill e g a l dr ug po lic ie s.
The pre vious decision of t he Board of Review that a pproved this claim for benef its pursuant to T.C.A. Sect. 50-7-303 is denied.

Upon our re view of the decisions of the Ag ency ’s Appea ls Tribunal and B oard of Review, the judg ment of the trial court and the rec ord as a whole, it is our de termination that the trial court

err ed in re versing the dec isions of the Ag ency ’s Appea l Tribunal and B oard of Review.

T h e t ri al co u rt ’s d ec i s i o n i n t h i s ca s e w as b as ed s o l el y u p o n t h e r ec o rd o f t h e p ro ce ed i n gs befor e th e A p p e a ls T r ib u n a l a n d th e B o ar d o f Re v ie w

. E v id e n c e in th e p r o c e e d in g s b e f o r e the Ag e nc y ’s re vie wi ng bo die s c on sis te d o f w itn e ss t e sti mon y a ndthe re su lts of a blo odte st f or the us e of marijuana . Three of Ms. L ong ’s co-w orker s -Sony a Bunc h, Kim H umbard and Glenda Pike- g ave evidenc e that they

had per sonally

witnessed Ms. L ong viol ati ng the City ’s policy ag ainst illega l drug s.
Sony a B unch was a fo rm er e mploy ee of the ca shier’s of

fice of the City ’s Fina nce Depa rtment. She did not appear to testify befor e either

the Appea ls Tribunal or the B oard of Review. At the out se t o f

th e h e ar in g b e f

o r e th e A p p e a ls T r ib u n a l, M s

. L o n g ’ s a tt o r n e y r a is e d a h e arsay ob je c tio n to a

writt e n s ta te me nt b y

Ms. B un c h whi c h all e g e d tha t Ms. L on g ha d be e n to her ho us e to buy marijuana and that Ms. L ong used marijuana in he r prese nce. The hearing office r sustained this objection, noting, howe ver, “ We do acc ept hea rsay in these c ases, but it g oes to the we ight of the document, okay ? ”-9-

Kim Humbard testified that Ms. L ong smoked marijuana in Ms. Humbard’s c ar w hil ethe two

wer e on lunch br eak f

rom work. Ms. Humbar d also testified that she ha d paid M s

. L ong for

mari jua na a t w or k a ndus e d ma

ri jua na wi th M s. L on g a way

fr om w or

k. At the tim e the se e ve nts alleg edly took place, Ms. Humba

rd wa s employ ed as a s ec re t ar y i n the nar cotics division of the City ’s po lic e de pa

rt me nt.

Glenda Pike, who w orked w ith Ms. L ong in the Citytax office, testified that Ms. L ong had marijuana in her possession at wor

k and that Ms. L ong showed he r a bag of m arijuana while at wor k. Ms. Pike further te stified that she her self had not used drug s with Ms. L ong and had not use d any dr ug s in a lmo st t e n y e ars , s ta tin g “ I tr ie d w he n, I

tr ie d ma ri juana wh e n I wa s 19 . It a lmo st kill e d me and I haven’ t tried it since.”

I n her te stimonybefor e the Appea ls Tribunal and the B oard of Review, Ms. L ong denied that she eve r violated the City ’s drug policy and st ated that the alleg ations of her three co-w orker s to the
contra ry wer e untrue

. Ms. Bunc h’s absence from the hearing s befor e both of t hese reviewing bodies prec luded an y

cr o s s -e x am i n at i o n re gar d i n g h erwr i t t en s t at em en tan d t h e A gen cy ’s re v i ew i n g b o d i es

were denie d th e op po rtun ity to o bs e rv e he r d e me a no r a s a wi tne ss. Ho we ve r, Ms. Hu mba rd , M s. Pik e a ndMs. L on g a ll a

pp e ared befor e the Ap pe a ls T ri bu na l a ndthe B oa rdof Re vie w a ndthe ir de me a no r u nd e r oath was re a dil y ob se rv able . B a se d u po n s uc h o bs e rv a tio ns a ndthe re c or d a s a whole, the testimony

of the witnesses ag ainst Ms. L ong was a ssessed to be not cr edible. We have previously

noted that when r esolution of an issue depe nds upon witness cre dibilit y , the fac t finder wh o h a s th e op po rtun ity

to o bs e rv e the ma nn e r andde me a no r o f the witne ss w hil e te sti fying is i n a fa r better position t han the r eviewing court to dec ide such issue. Cap pe llo v . A lbe rt , C/A No. M2 00 0- 02 10 4- CO A- R3- CV , 2 00 1 WL 11 41 22 0, 20 01 Te nn . A pp . L EX I S 72 1 at *1 8 (T e nn . Ct

. App. M.S., filed September 27, 2001) . We find no basis for c oncluding that the decision to acc ept as true Ms. L ong ’s testimony in denial of the allegations of the witnesse s ag ainst her “ was a rbitrary

or ca pricious or c hara cterized by abuse of discretion or clea rly unwar rante d exercise of

discretion.” We further d eem Ms. L ong ’s testimony in her own be half de ny ing the char g es ag ainst her to be “s u bstantial and material evidenc e” a s defined by the Court in S o u th e r

n R y

. Co

. v

. B o a rd of E qualizati on , 6 8 2 S. W. 2 d 1 9 6
, 1 9 9 ( T e n n

. 1 9 8 4 )

. We a ls o n o te th e B o ar d o f Re v ie w ’s acknow ledg ment of the possibilitythat Ms. L ong ’s “of fice co-w orker ”, appa

rently M s

. P ike, had
mot ivatio n to dis c re dit

Ms. L on g g ive n th e pe nd ing inv e sti g a tio n re g ard ing fu nd s missi ng fr om the ir department. Additionally , Ms. L ong ’s testimony implies that, although M s

. Hu mbard wa s not

e m p l o ye d i n M s

. L o n g ’ s d e p ar t m e n t , s h e m i g h th a v e b e e n m o t i v a t e d t o g i v e f a l s e t e s t i m o n y b y a g ener al fe ar of

losing he r job:

Well the whole time me and Ki m [Humbard] were f riends we worke d toge ther,

we we nt t o lunc h tog e the r, sh e wa s alw a y s wor ri e d ab ou t losin g he r j ob , s he c ou ld

never lose her job. And it didn’t ha ve anything to do with drug s or anything like that. She just constantly

made c omments, “I

can’ t lose my

job, I ’ve g ot two kids I ’ve g ot to take ca

re of .”T he q ue st i o n b efo re the A ge nc y w as w he t he r M s. L o ng ’ s em p l o ym en t wa s t erm i na t ed “f o r” (m ea ning ‘b ec au se 1

o f’ o r ‘d u e to ’) m isc o n d u c t. T o the e x te n t the C ity’ s tre a tm e n t o f o the r e m p lo ye e s w h o vio la te d the sa m e p o licy c a sts d o u b t up o n it s p ro ff

e re d re a so n fo r th is e m p lo ye e ’s d isc h a rg e , i t i s re le v a n t.

-10- I n addition to its assessment of the testimony of witnesses, the A g ency ’s dec ision on review shows that it c onsidered the fac t that Ms. L ong submitt ed to a blood test for marijuana

on September 27, 2002. Ms. L ong testified that she took this test the day afte r she wa s re quested to do so by

ass is ta nt c ity

a dmi nis tr a tor , Jac k H e nn e rl y . T he re su lts of the te st w e re ne g a tiv e , a lth ou g h M s. Humbard ha d testified that Ms. L ong had used ma rijuana a s rec ently

as late A ug ust. The trial c ourt

app are ntl y

dis c ou nts the ne g a tiv e te st r e su lts statin g in i ts me mor a nd um o pin ion that “ [u]su a lly marijuana only stay s in the blood sy stem of a mari j u an a user some 20 to 25 da y s.” We find no evidenc e in the re cord to support this finding

. I n any event, the f act that a n individual who is alleg ed to h a ve us e d mari

jua na on mul tip le a nd re la tiv e ly re c e nt oc c a sio ns , p ro mpt ly a ndwi lli ng ly

su bmi ts to a re quested blood test for mari juana whic h shows no trac e of ma rijuana in he r blood strea m

c on sti tut e s c ir c ums ta nti a l e vid e nc e te nd ing to d isp ro ve su c h a lle g a tio ns . We c on c lud e that th is evidenc e wa s substantial a nd materia l and was proper ly considere d by the re viewing bodies of the Age n cyi n s u p p o rt o f t h ei r d ec i s i o n s i n fa v o r o f M s

. L o n g.

As a fina l matter, we addre ss the as s er t i o n o f t he trial c ourt and the City that the Ag ency revie wing bodies inappropr i at el y considere d the fa ct that unequa l disciplinary action wa s taken

a g a ins t Ms . L on g a ndhe r c o- wo rk e rs . A s st a te d b y the tr ia l c ou rt

in i ts j ud g me nt:

I n a dd iti on , th e Ag e nc y ’s le g a l a ndfa c tua l a na ly sis is i n e rr or a s it re la te s to considerations of the punishment of cowor kers who provided testimony of L ong ’s drug involvement. Respectf ully , the Cityasserts that disciplinary action taken by it with respect to e mploy ees other than L ong was not g erma ne to the issue befor e the Ag ency

and its review ing bodies in de termining whether L ong was terminated fo r m isc on du c t c on ne c te d w ith wo rk . Su c h c on sid e ratio ns were no t r e le va nt t o the determination of the i ssues befor e the Ag ency and it s revie wing bodies and/or

were gi v en inordinate weig ht in reac hing this dec ision and thus constitut e and contributed to a decision which is arbitra ry , capricious, char acte rized by abuse of discretion and/or

a cle arly unwar rante d exercise of

discretion.

W hi le we do no t ne c e ssa ri ly dis a g re e that th e dis c ipl ina ry a c tio ns take n b y

the City wi th

r e s p e c t to o th e r e mp lo y e e s is n o t r e le v a n t to th e d e te r mi n a ti o n o f w h e th e r M s

. L ong violated the Cit y ’s drug policy , we do not ag ree that this factor c arried an inordinate amount of we ight in the 1 Ag ency ’s dec ision. The de cisions of both review ing bodie s indicate that the initial dec ision reac hed

wa s th a t th e City

ha d f a ile d to pr ov e that Ms . L on g v io la te d th e City ’s dr ug po lic y . T he Ap pe a ls Tribunal states in its decision, “The employ er ha s failed to prove th e cl ai m ant us ed drug s or was involved with drug s at work or away from work. Even if it ha d, it has failed to prove the claimant’ s actions we re a

brea ch of duty

dese rv i n g t er m i nation, while the other employ ees involved did not br e a c h a du ty a nddidno t de se rv e te rm inatio n. ” Th e wo rd s “ e v e n if it had” re fer

to a hy pothetical

s i t u at i on that did not ex ist in l ight of the primary

finding that the Citydid not p r o v e it s c ase.-11-

L ikewise, while the Boa rd of Revie w alludes to disparate treatment of Ms. L ong , the B oard’ s pr ima ry fi nd ing is that the City did no t me e t its bu rd e n a tte mpt ing to pr ov e the c ha rg e s a g a ins t Ms

. L ong with respec t to ill eg al drug s. As the B oard state s in its decision:

Gi v e n a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e B o ar d d o e s n o t f i n d t h e e v i d e n c e s u f

f i c ie nt t o

rea sonably establish conduct by the claimant in violation of the employ er’ s drug po lic ie s.

We are compelled to the conclusion that the trial court “ substitut ed its judgme nt for that of
t h e b o ar d o f r ev i ew as t o t h e we i gh t o f t h e ev i d en ce o n q u es t i o n s o f fa ct ” in t h i s ca s e. I n s o d o i n g, the trial court exceede d its authority under Tenn. C ode Ann. §50-7-304( i). We further disag ree that the dec isions of the Appea ls Tribunal and the B oard of Review we re e ither “[a]rbitrary or ca pricious or cha rac terized by

abuse of discretion or c lear ly

unwar rante d exercise of

disc re t i on” or w ere “[u] nsupp o rt ed b y ev idence which is both substantial and materia l in the light of the r ecor d.” Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the t rial court is rever sed and the cause is remande d for f urther proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. Costs of appe al ar e ad j u d ged against the City

of Morristown.

_________________________________________ SHARON G. LEE, J UDGE