### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O n- Br ie fs A ugus t 24 , 200 4
CLA REN CE MU MF ORD v. BO AR D O F E DU CA TION OF THE C ITY O F MEM PHIS
. A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Chancer y Court for Shelby Cou nty No. CH-02-1535- 1 The Hon orable Walter L. Evan s, Chancellor

No. W2004-01022-C OA-R3-C V - F iled October 25, 2004

Boa rd of Edu c ation of the City of Memphis suspended te nured te ache r and a ssistant principal without pay

pending an investig ation of child abuse by the Depa rtment of C hildren’s S ervic es. After teac her w as reinstated, he sought to rec over lost wag es under T.C.A. §49-5-511. Trial court found that teac her w as entitled to rec over but that such r ecove ry should be offse t by

wag es ea rned during the period of suspension. We affirm as modified her ein.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed as Modif ied
W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., joined.
L eonar d E. Van Eaton of Memphis, For A ppellant, Clarenc e Mumford
Erne st G . K e lly

of Me mph is, F or

Ap pe lle e , B oa

rdof Ed uc a tio n o f the City

of Me mph is
OP IN ION
The fa cts of this case are undisputed and the p ar t ies filed a “ J oint St ipulation of Fa cts” on Dec ember

16, 2003. At the time the circ umstances of t h i s ca s e arose , Clarenc e Mumford (“Mumfor d,” “Plaintiff,” or “A ppellant”) was e mploy ed as an Assistant Principal at Humes Juni or Hig h School in Memphis, Tenne ssee. On November 12, 1996, Mumford a dminist ere d a paddling to one of his students. As a result of the paddling , the student alleg edly suffe red some br

uising a nd the student’s par ents complained to the G ener al Sessions Court of Shelby County . Mumford wa s su mmo ne d as a de fe nd a nt an d, fo llo wi ng a he ari ng , the c ha rg e s we re dis mis se d a ndhe re su me d h is duties as Assistant Principal. The pa rents of the student continued to pur sue the matter a nd filed a c omp la int wi th the De pa

rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s ( “ DC S” ), a ll egin g that Mu mf or d w a s a pe rp e tr a t o r o f c h i l d ab u s e
. O n A p r i l 1 5 , 1 9 9 7 , t h e B o ar d o f E d u c a t i o n o f t h e C i t y of Me mph is-2-

(“B oard,” “De fendant,” or “ Appellee ”) r ece ived a letter from DCS, which rea ds, in relevant part, as fo llo ws :
I n acc ordanc e with State rule 1240-7-9-.09, DCS is notify ing y ou that

Clarenc e Mumford ha s been ide ntified as the a lleg ed per pet ra tor of c hil d a bu se in an in dic a te d r e po rt that D CS has in vest ig a te d. DC S has notified Mr. Mumford of the re port and of the rig ht to a hearing on the alleg ations. This info rm at i o n is confidential; there fore , y ou may not relea se it to any one else

. It is our understanding that Clarenc e Mumford is in a care taker , supervisory

instructional, or treatment role with y our ag ency , which constitutes an eme rg ency situation as describe d in DCS rules. You must take immediate ac tion to ensure that Clarenc e Mum ford ha s no a c c e ss t o or con tac t wi th any c hil d inthec areof

y ou r a g e nc y

un til fu rthe r n oti c e by

DC S.
I f y o u r a g e n c y d o e s n o t t ak e im me d iatea c ti o n a s d e s c r ib e d ab o [v e ], DCS will take action to suspe nd, revoke , or deny y o u r age ncy ’s l i c e n s e , i f l i c e n s e d b y D H S

. If

D H S d o e s n o t l i c e n s e yo u [ r ] a g e n c y, it w ill pu rs ue oth e r a c tio n n ecessa ry pu rs ua nt t o T CA 71 -3 -5 30 in order to protect the c h ildren in y our org anization’s car e (inc luding seeking injunctive relief

).
DCS will notify

y ou[r] ag ency

in writing of

the final decision on the case , whether

that is by administrative hea

ring , court orde r, or waiver of due pr ocess rights by

the alleg ed per

petrator. On April 21, 1997, the B oard, a cting throug h its P ersonne l Division, relieve d Mumford of his duties, without pay , while the mat t er was re solved betwe en Mumford and DCS. Following notification of hi s suspension, Mumford conte sted the DCS ruling and was a ffor ded a he aring befor e the Administrative L aw Judge , who made a preliminary

ruling that the claim of c hild abuse had not been pr oved. The Adminis t ra t i v e L aw Judge was ove rruled by DCS’ Deputy

Commi ssioner on Marc h 23, 1998. Mumford appealed to the Chance ry Court of Shelby

County . On Novembe r 17, 1998, the t rial court enter ed it s Finding s of Fact and Conclusions of L aw, whic h overr uled the ac tion of the DCS Deputy

Commi ssioner and r einstated the f indin gs of the Administrative L aw Judge

. D u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f

t h e s e ap p e a l s , M u m f

o r d p r o c u r e d e m p l o ym e n tw i t h t h e T u n i c a C o u n t y, Mississ ippi Boar d of Education. This employ ment was at a lower rate of pay than Mumford’s sa lary wi th M e mph is C ity

Sc ho ols

. OnF e br ua ry 12 , 1 99 9, theB oa

rdof fe re d to re ins tate Mu mf

or d. At that time , Mumf

or d c ho se to finish the school y ear at Tunica. Consequently , the parties ag ree d that Mumford would limit any claim for ba ck wa g es to the period ending on Fe bruary 12, 1999. When Mumford made de mand-3-

for r eimbursement f

or lost wag es for

the period of his suspension, the Boa rd re fused to pay . On Aug ust 13, 2002, Mumfor d filed a “ Complaint t o Recove r Unpa id Wage s.” On F ebrua ry 11, 2003, the B oard filed its Answer , in which it admits that the B oard suspe nded Mumford f rom his positi on without pay , but denies liabilityfor ba ck pay under T.C.A. §49- 5-511.
Th e pa rt ie s’ re sp e c tiv e po sit ion s a rese t ou t in thi s “ Joint

Stip ulatio n o f F a c ts” a s f oll ow s:
10. The Plaintiff see ks back pay and bene fits in f

u ll for the entire time o f h is r e lie f o f d uti e s f ro m th e Me mph is C ity

Sc ho ols sy ste m. He c ontends that his rig ht to back wa g es and be nefits is controlled by T.C.A. §49-5-511...and that this sum s hould not be diminis hed by offse tting his ea

rning s at Tunica, Mississippi.... I t is the contention of the B oard of Education that it took no action ag ainst the Plaintiff oth e r tha n a c tio n th a t w a s r e qu ir e d o f i t by a state a g e nc y

a nd that it should not be responsible for any losses resulting from the r ejec ted char g es broug ht by

the parents and by

the Depa rtment of Children’s Service s. I t is the further posi tion of t he Board that, if any damag es we reto be award ed, it w ou ld b e e nti tle d to of fs e t th e e arn ing s in Tuni c a f o r th a t e n ti r e p e r io d

. T h e D e f e n d a n t f u rth e r c o n te n d s th at T.C.A. §49-5-511 is inapplica ble to this sit uation in that there have been no pr ocee dings unde r the tenur e law and that this section does not apply under the p l ea d i n gs and proof in this case. De fendant further contends that the cur

rent interpr etation of T.C.A. §49-5- 511, if it were deeme d applicable to this case, is subject to re view and re c on sid e ratio n andsh ou ld b e c ha ng e d to a llo w s uc h o ff se t.
11. It i s t h e conte ntion of the Plaintiff that the Depa rtment of Children ’s S ervic es (DCS) ac ted pursuant to T.C.A. §71-3- 530...which codesection cle arly provides that in the case of an ag ency not lic en s ed byor subject to licensur e throug h the DCS the de pa rt me nt m a y

pr oc e e d t o brin g a n a c tio n inthec ha nc e ry c ou rt to enjoin the per son the depa rt ment deems re sponsible for abuse from continuing to pr ovide car e for children. Plaintiff further contends that theDe fe nd a nt i s n ot l ice ns ed by theDC S a ndis n ot s ub je c t to licensure and re moving Plaintiff fr om his posit i o n as assistant principal wa s not require d by law and w as a pe rsonnel mana g ement de c isi on by

De fe nd a nt.
This matter wa s hear d on Marc h 9, 2004. On April 2, 2004, a F inal J udg ment was e nte re d, wh ic h r e a ds , inpe rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s: ...[I ]tappea

rs to the Court that t h e P l aintiff, Clare nce Mumford, is entitled to back wag es for the 1997-98 school y ear in the-4- amount of $16,145.82 and for the 1998-99 school y ear in the amount of $8,715.64 for

a total judg ment of $24,861.46. The Court f

inds that, unde r the circ umstances of this case, the Plaintiff is not entitl ed to his further claims for summer

work, va c a tion d a y s, re tir e me nt c on tribu tio ns , o r s oc ia l se c urity co n t ributions but that all such claims, to the ext ent applica ble, ar e included in the amount of the j u d gm en t set forth a bove. The Court further finds that, pursuant to the common law principles and principles of e quity , the Def endant is entitled to offse t the wag es earned by the Plaintiff for the sa m e t i m e period while the Plaintiff was e mploy ed by ...the Tunica , Mississ ippi School and that under the circ umstances of

this c ase, TCA 49-5-511 does not requir e the de nial of such c ommon law offse t. The amount of the judgme nt as set out he re in r e fl e c ts this of

fs e t.
* * *
Ba sed on the fore g oing, the Court enter s J udg ment in favor of the P laintiff, C lare nce Mumford, and ag ainst the Boa rd of Educ ation of the Memphis City

Schools in the amount of $24,861.46.... Mumford appe als and raises two issues for re view as state d in his brief:
I . D id the Chanc e llo r e rr in r uli ng that a lth ou g h th e Pla int if f i s e nti tle d to ba c k w a g e s f

or the19 97 -9 8 a nd19 98-99 s c ho ol [y e ars ] that T.C.A. §49-5-511 doe s not de ny the Def endant the rig ht to off-set ag ainst Plainti ff’ s lost wag es the amounts that Plaintiff earned during that time period as an emp l o y ee of the Tunica Mississ ippi School Sy ste ms.
I I . Did the Chanc e llo r er

r in de nying the Pla int if

f re c ov e ry of inc ome he would haveearned during the applica ble time period for

car eer ladder payments for summer w o rk i n the school sy stem, vacation day s, retire ment contributions, and social security contributions due fr om the De fe nd a nt.
The B oard r aises the f

ollowing a dditional issue in it s b ri ef : W h ether a tenure d teac her or a ssi st ant pri nci pal , w ho is b arr e d f ro m hi s d uti e s a s th e re su lt o f a dir e c tiv e of

a state a g e nc y , is e nti tle d to re c ov e r b a c k p a y up on re ins tate me nt.
The re solution of the issues in thi s case rests first on the questi on of whether T.C.A. §49-5- 511 is applicable g iven the fa cts of t his case and, if applicable , whether and to what e x tent Mumford is entitled to recove r for

lost wag es during his suspension. Const ruction of a statute and applicationT he t erm “ t eacher, ” as us ed i n t hi s st at ut e i ncl ud es “t eachers, supervi sors, p ri nci p al s, d i rect o r o f schoo l s and 1 al l other cert i f

i cat ed p ers o nnel e m p l o y ed b y a ny local b o ard o f ed ucat i o n, fo r s ervi ce i n pub l i c, el em ent ary and s eco nd ary schoo l s i n T enness ee.
. . . ” T

. C

. A

. §4 9

- 5

- 5 0 1 (10 ) ( 2 0 0 2 ). -5- o f th e la w to th e f

a c ts is a q u e s ti o n o f la w f or the c ourt. S e e Sani

fi ll o f T N v . T N So lid Wa ste Disposal , 9 07 S.W. 2d80 7, 81 0 ( Te nn .1 99 5) . A s su c h, ou r r e vie w o f the tr ial c ou rt ’s or de r i s de novo upon the re cord w ith no presumption of corr ectne ss acc ompany ing the trial court’s c onclusions of law. See Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) ; Waldron v. Delffs , 988 S.W .2d 182, 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) ; Sims v . St

e war t , 973 S.W .2d 597, 599-600 (Te nn. Ct. App. 1998).
T.C.A. §49-5-511 (2002), under which Mumford sued to rec over lost wag es for the period of his su sp e ns ion , r e a ds , inre le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: (3) A dir ector of schools may suspend a tea cher

at any time that may se e m ne c e ssa

ry , pe nd ing inv e sti g a tio n o r f ina l di sp os iti on of

a c a se befor e the board or

an appe al. I f vindicate d or re instated, the tea cher shall b e p a idth e f

u ll s a la r y f o r th e p e r io d d u r in g w h ic h th e te a c h er was suspende d. 1 T.C.A. §49-5-511( a)( 3). Applicability

of T.C.A. §49-5- 511
Th e B oa rd asse rt s th a t T .C. A. §4 9- 5- 51 1 is no t app lic ableto the c a se a t ba r b e c aus e Mumford wa s not suspended “p ending investig ation or final disposition of the ca se bef ore the B oa rd .” Re lying on thewo rd s “ be fo retheB oa rd ,” the B oa

rd re a so ns that it

c a nn ot b e he ld l ia

ble for Mumfor d’s lost wag es since the dispositi on of the c ase a g ainst Mumford was not within the Boa rd’s c ontrol, it being a

party neither to the G ener al Sessions nor to the DCS procee dings.
I n the J oint St ipulation of Fa cts, the Boa rd conce des that it a cquiesc ed to the demands of the DCS letter. Be cause he did not demand a hearing be forethe B oard, a s was his rig ht under T.C.A. §49-5-512, Mumfor d, too, acquiesc ed to the DCS letter. In its brief, the Boa rd asserts that it had no choice but to suspend Mumford since the Boa rd was “under

a statutory

restraint pursuant to T.C.A. §7 1- 3- 53 0. ” T. C.A . § 71 -3 -5 30 (1 99 5) re a ds , inre le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: (2 ) If the de pa

rt me nt d e te rm ine s th a t a

bu se , n e g le c t, o r s e xua l a

bu se has occ urre d and the person or ag ency fails to take a

ppropriate action to p re ve nt f

utu reabu se , n e g le c t, o r s e xua l a bu se , th e de pa

rt me nt s ha ll take suc h action as may be nece ssary to revoke , suspend, or de ny the ag ency ’s license . I f the pe rson or a g ency is n o t l i ce nsed or not subject to licensure , the depa rtment may

proceed to bring an ac tion in the chanc ery

court of the county

of the defe ndant’s residenc e or the c ou nty in w hic h th e abu se , ne g le c t, or se xua l abu se oc c ur re d to e njo inT

. C

. A

. §71

- 3- 53 0 was r epeal ed by Act s 200 0, ch

. 981 § 1, ef fect i ve Ju l y 1, 200 0. T he D C S l et t er , wh i ch 2

re fer e n c e s this sta tute w a s w ritten o n A p ril 1 5 , 1 9 9 7 a n d is se t o u t su p ra
. -6- thepe rs on or

a g e nc y or a ny ind ivi du a l f

ou nd by thede pa rtme nt t o have be en re sponsible for the a bu s e, n eglec t, or sexual abuse fr om c on tin uin g to pr ov ide c are fo r c hil dr e n on a fu ll- tim e or p art -t ime ba sis

. T.C.A. §7-3-530( 2). 2 Nothing in T.C.A. §71- 3-530 indicate s that DCS can mandate the B oard to suspend one of its e mpl oy e e s. Ra the r, T. C.A . § 71-3 -5 30 ind ic a te s th a t D CS “ ma y pr oc e e d to bring a n a c tio n.
.. to enjoin the per son or ag ency or any individual f ound by the department to have bee n responsible for the abuse ...from continuing to provide ca re f or chi l d ren....” Short of a c ourt order , it was not imperative that the Boa

rd suspend Mumford in response to DCS’ April 15, 1997 letter. The B oard, howeve r, stipulates to the fac t that it “compli[ed] with that letter pe nding the ultimate outcome of thede pa rt me nt [D CS].” I n its b ri e f, theB oa rda sse rt s th a t “ [t]his c a se ha s a ri se n p ri mari ly

be c aus e thepatte rnof

re ve rs a ls f

oll ow ing[DCS’ ] ini tia l de te rm inatio n c on su me d mo rethan a y e ar anda

ha lf to arrive at an ultimate solution....” Be cause it wa s under no leg al obligation to suspend Mumford ba se d s ole ly

on DC S’ le tte r, a t a ny

tim e du ri ng thepe nd e nc y of theDC S in ve sti g a tio n a ndapp e a ls proce ss, th e Bo ard could have r einstated Mumford or could have conducte d its own investigation of the a lleg ations ag ainst him. Thus, the t imeliness and ult imate di sposition of t his case could have been “bef ore the Boa

rd” ha d the B oard so c hosen. Howe ver, the Boa rd opted to aw ait the final outcome of the DCS case
. The fact that the Board acquiesc ed to DC S should notremove the B oard from liability

under T.C.A. §49- 5-511 since this dec ision re prese nts a choice by the Boa rd and not a leg al mandate

. Damag es Having found that T.C.A. §49-5- 511 is applicable to this case , we now turn to the i ssue of whether and to what e x tent Mumford should rec over the reunde r. T.C.A. §49-5- 511 clea rly states that, “[i] f vindicate d or re instated, the tea cher shall be paid the full salary for the period during which the teac her w as suspende d.” The Boa rd conte nds that the trial court was corr ect in a llowing an offse t ag ainst Mumford’s sala

ry of the amount he ea

rned w hile working in Tunica County . We disag ree
. I n Jo ne s v . Br

own , 727 S.W .2d 497 (Tenn. 1987) , our Supreme C o u rt h eld t hat T.C.A. §49-5- 511(a) (3) means that the reinstated teac her is entitled to full salary with no offset a llowed. Se e als o Bates v. Deal , 728 S.W .2d 326 (Tenn. 1987)

. The pa rties stipulate that Mumf

o rd ’s t o t al compensation for the 1997-98 sc hool y ear was $55,331.00, and that Mumford’s salary for the 1998-99 ac ademic y ear , up to Febr uary 12, 1999, was $34,597.00. I n addition, Mumford asserts that he lost $5,420.00 in care er la dder pay ments over the tw o s umm e rs of

his su sp e ns ion , a ndthat heis e nti tle d to re c ov e r f or sic k d a y s, va c a tio n day s, los t c on tribu tio ns to h is r e tir e me nt f un d, a ndso c ia l se c urity

be ne fi ts o n h is l os t w a g e s.-7-

T.C.A. §49-5-511 c learly limit s rec overy to “full bac k pay at the rate of a

teac her’ s salary ,” Jones , 727 S.W .2d at 499, and there is no allowanc e for the rec overy of bene fits. Consequently , we find that Mumford is entitled to r ecove r $55,331.00 for the 1997- 1998 school y ear and $34,597.00 for the 1998- 1999 school y ear . Howeve r, under the plain l ang uag e of the s tatute, he is not entitled to r ecove r for car eer ladder benef its, va cation day s, sick day s, retire ment contribut i o n , o r s ocial security contribution.
For the fore g oing r easons, wemodify the J udg ment of the trial court to r efle ct an aw ard of damag es in favor

of Mumford and aga i n s t t he B oard in the amount of $89,928.00 and af firm the J udg ment as modified. Costs of this a ppeal are assessed a g ainst the Appellee , Boa rd of Educ ation of the City

of Memphis.

__________________________________________ W. F RA NK CRAW FOR D, P RE S I

DI NG J UD GE , W. S.