# FILED

April 24, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk CATHY P. SPRAYBERRY-GRAVITT, ) ) Plaintiff/Appella

nt, ) Appeal No.

) 01-A-01-9707-CH-00295 v. ) ) Montgomery Chancery DAVID BAKER, Director of Schools for the ) No. 95-08-0143 CLARKSVILLE-

MONTGOMERY COUNTY ) SCHOOLS and THE CLARKSVIL LE- ) MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF ) EDUCATION, ) ) Defendants/App

ellees. )

)

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY

AT CLARKSVILLE, TENNESSEE

THE HONORABLE CAROL CATALANO, CHANCELLOR

CHARLES HAMPTON WHITE RICHARD L.

COLBERT KURTIS J. WINSTEAD Cornelius & Collins Suite 2700, Nashville City Center 511 Union Street P. O. Box 190695 Nashville, Tennessee 37219 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF /APPELLANT

RICHARD H. BATSON SUZANNE M. PEARSON Batson, Nolan, Brice, Harvey & Williamson 121 South Third Street Clarksville, Tennessee 37040 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES

VACATED AND REMANDED

WALTER W. BUSSART, SPECIAL JUDGE-2- 

# OPINION

This is a teacher tenure case wherein the plaintiff teacher challenged her dismissal from a teacher position in the Clarksville-Mo ntgo mery Count y School System ("the school system ") on the basis that she had attained permanent tenure status under the provisi ons of the Tennessee Tea cher Tenure Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-501 to 49- 5-5 15. Finding that the plaintiff had not attained tenure, the trial

c ourtsummarily dismissed her case. On appeal, we determine that there remai n genuineissues of mater

ial fact to be reso

lved by the

court below. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's j udgment and rem and this case to the tr

ial court f

or further proceedings.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTO RY This action beg a n when Plaintiff, Cathy Spray

berry-Grav

itt, filed a complaint

in the trial courtalleging a violation of her rights as a tenured teacher and seeking reinstatement to her pos ition. Defendantsanswered contending that Plaintiff

neverattained tenure sta tus and therefore ha

d no rights und er the Tenure Ac t. Defend ant s filed a motion f or summar

y judgment

supported by the a

ffidavits of Marilyn Garrett, a secretary for the Clarksvi lle-Montgomer y County Boar

d of Education

("the Board of Education" or "the Board") an d Da vid Baker, the scho ol superintendent. Plaintiff then fil ed a cross motio

n for summary judgm

ent supported by the deposition of Supe rintendent Baker a

nd Defendant s’ re sponses to Ms. Sprayberry-Grav itt’s first interrogator ies and request for production of docum ents. The cro ss mot

ions for summary judgme nt were argued and the chancellor entered ju dgment granting Defendan

ts’ motion for

summary judgment a

nd denying Plaintiff’ s motion for summa

ry judgme

nt , thus dismissing Plaint iff’s case. T

he chancellor concluded, as a matter of la w, that Plaintiff

’s case should be

dismissed since she did not hold permanent t

enure pursuant

to the statute. A proper appeal was filed in this court. The record consis

ts of thepleadings with aff idavits attached to th

e motions for summary judgm

ent and the deposition of Superintendent Baker.

II. FACTS Plaintiff holds aBachelor of Scie

nce degree from

Carson-Newm

an College and is cert ified to teach elemen tary grades 1- 8 and special educat ion in the public-3-

schools of Tennessee. T

he Board of Education elected her as a teacher in that school system andassig ned h er as a full- time resource teacher for the 1990-91 school year. The Board re-elected her

for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years and she continued to teach all three years at Clarksville High School as a regular, full-time teacher.
During Plaintiff's fir

st year sh

e received her appr

entice level teac

hing certificate

upon recomm

endation by her pr

incipal and superinte

ndent a nd approval of the Board. In the 1992-93 school year, s he was recom

mended and appr

oved by Superintendent

Baker for re-e

mploym ent as a suppleme

ntal homebound tea

cher in addition to her full-tim

e teaching position. At t h e end of the 1992-93 school year, Plaintiff completed her three year probationary period required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-5-504. T he Board of Educat

ion voted not

to renew her regular full- time contract for the 1993-94 school year. However, Plai ntiff continued in par

ttime employment as a supplemental hom ebound teacher and as a substitute teacher for the school system during the 1993-94 school year.

Effective August 15, 1994, Ms. Sprayberry-G r avitt was re-em

ployed and assigned to a regular, ful

l-time teachi

ng position at New Pr

ovidence Middle Scho

ol for th e 1994- 95 school year. Superin tendent Ba ker was aware, prior to Pl aintiff’s effective dat e of re-employ

ment, that she

complied with a

ll the requirem

ents for tenure except re-hire by

the Board of Educa

tion. Plaintiff w

as included on a list entitled "Personn el Actions Approved by Director of School July 1994" as “recommended

for employ

ment.” This listing was submi tted to th e Board of Ed ucation

and included inform

ation concerning her

“three ye

ars teaching experience.”
During her fourth yea

r of regular full-

time service,

Ms. Sprayber

ry-Gravitt

was recommended

and approved by

her principal, the superintendent, and the Board of Education for career ladder c ertificati on. Nevertheless , on March 30, 1996, Superintendent

Baker notified Pla

intiff that her cont

ract would not

be renewedfor the 1995-96 school year. P

laintiff thus contend

s that she was terminated

without charges

oran opportunity for a hearing as required by the Tennessee Teacher Tenure Ac t

. Defendants contend

that she never atta

ined tenure and ther

efore is not so entitl

ed.-4- III. PLAINTIFF'S TENURE STATUS Since this case is here on the granting of a mo tion for summ

ary judgm

ent
on behalf of Defendants, we are to determine whether or not there are genuine issues of ma terial fact s as to whether or not Plaintiff held tenure under the Tennessee Teacher Tenure Act at th

e time of her

dismissal. T

enn. R. Civ. P.56.03; Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 210

(Tenn. 1993). Both parties contend there are no such issues of f act but, of course, each m aintains a strikingly

different position w

ith regard to Plaintiff's statu s.
Regardinga teacher's ob taini ng permanent te

nure, Tennessee

Code Annotated section 49- 5-503 provides as follo ws: (2) "Perman

ent tenure" applies to any teacher who: (A) Has a de gree from an approved four-year college or to any vocati

onal t eacher who has the equ ivalent

amount of training established an d licensed by the st

ate board of educat

ion; (B) Holds a valid professional license based on training covering the

subjects or grade s taught; (C) Has completed a

probationary period of three (3) school years or

not less than twenty

-seven (27) month s w ithin the last five-y ear period, the la

st year to be em

ployed as a regul

ar teacher; and (D) Is reemploye d by t he board for service after the probationary perio d.

Itis clear from

this record, and not disputed by the parties, that Plaintiff m

et each one of these four require

ments. On the other hand, it is the application o

f Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-5-504(b) which is at issue her e. That statute pr

ovides the following: (b) Upon the comple

tion of the probationar

y period, anyteacher who is re-employ

ed or retained in th

e system is entitled to

the tenure status for which suc h teacher is qualif

ied by college training and licensing; provide d, that the superinte

ndent sha ll notify the board prior to

re-election by

the board that the teacher, if re-elected,

will attain tenure

status.
To support their interpr

etation of section 49-5-504(b),

Defendants rely

on Reeves v. Etowah City Sch. Bd. of Educ. , 806 S.W.2d 176 (Tenn. 1991). I

n Reeves , the indiv i dual seeking the benef it of the entitlem

ent to tenure was hi

mself the superintendent

of schools. In other words, the individual whose duty it was to notify-5-

the Board under section

49-5-504(b) was him

self seeking tenure

status. On such facts the supreme court concluded that Reeves had not attained tenure status because of his failure to notify the Board. Plaintiff relies upon Sanders v. Vincent , 558 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. 1977) and Reed v. Washington County Bd. of Educ. , 756 S.W.2d 250

(Tenn. 1988), for the proposition tha t recomme

ndationof the superintendent is not necessary for the attainmen t of t enure and the only affirmative

act that is necessa

ry, after th

e completion of the

probationary pe

riod, is simply

the act of re-em

ployment.

We believe it is clear that section 49-5-504(b) only requires notice that “rehiring” will cause the teacher to “attain tenure status.” There is not a requirem ent in that statut e that the superinten dent recomm

end the teacher fo

r such status. It is important here that the affidavit of Superintendent Baker stat es t hat he never recommended

her for tenure. This statemen t is irrelevant. U

nder the statute, t

he superintendent

could fail to recom

mend a teache

r bu t, at the same

time, notify

the Board that re-hiring her

would cause her

to attain tenure sta

tus and the Board coul

d re-hire her causing such stat us to attach. In othe

r words, the Board can re- employ a teacher without the

superintendent’s r

ecommenda

tion or over his obje

ction.

Ms. Sprayberry

-Gravitt was re-hired by

Superintendent Bak

er inJuly 1994 and that action was revie wed by the Boar d of Education on Augu st 9, 1994. It is unclear from this record what the action of the

Board of Education was with regard to her re-hiring. It is clear that the notice presented to the Bo ard cont ained the i nformation

that Plaintiff had completed thre e years of expe

rience. Howev

er, the record does not reveal whether the Board was p ut on notice that Plaintiff, if reelected, would attain tenure status. Without clarifi cation of this fact,

this court cannot determine whether the actio

n of theBoard was an aff

irmative acti

on, with appropria

te notification, for the re-hiring of this teacher. Therefore, it is ou r opinion t hat there remain genuine

issues of mater

ial facts as to wha

t information

was conveyed

to the Board of Education with r egard to its action a

t any time following Plaintiff's completion of the qual ifications for tenu re.

For the foregoing

reasons, the trial court’ s grant of summ ary judgm

ent is vacated andthis cause is rem anded to that court for fur ther proceedings.The costs of this appeal are t

axed to the Defenda

nts/Appellees.-6- ________ __________

_______________

_ WALTER W. BUSSART, SPECIAL JUDGE

CONCUR:

_______________________________________ HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE

_______________________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE