### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON Fe bruary17, 200 5 S es sio n WANDA SHAW v. SH ELB Y COUNTY GOVERNME NT
A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Circ uit Court for Sh elby County No. CT-005574-02 The Honorable Kay S. Robilio, Jud ge

No. W2004-01110-C OA-R3-C V - F iled April 22, 2005

She lby Cou nty e mpl oy e e app e a le d d e ni al of re vie w b y theCou nty ’s Civ il Se rv ic e Me ri t Boa rd following elimination of her position. The S helby County Circuit Court aff irmed the de nial of a r eview by

the B oard be cause employ ee ’s position was eliminated due to loss of funding as op po se d to dis c ipl ina

ry a c tio n a g a ins t he r. Emplo y e e app e a ls. We a ff irm.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J . and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
Emma L . Cole of Memphis For Appellant, Wanda Shaw
Brian L . Kuhn, Shelby

CountyAttorney ; Robert B. Rolwing , Senior Assistant CountyAttorney , For Appellee , Shelby

CountyGovernment
OP IN ION
This case was submitted to the trial court upon Stipulations of Fact. For purposes of consistency , we r eproduc e those fa cts here in:

12 . Wa nd a

Sha w [“ Pla int if

f, ” or “ Ap pe llant” ] be g a n s e rv ice wi th S he lby Cou nty Go ve rn me nt [“D e fe nd a nt, ” or “ Ap pe lle e ” ] a s aT h e S h e lb y C o u n ty G o v e rn m e n t P e rs o n n e l M a n a g e m e n t S yste m , a h a n d b o o k m a d e p u rs u a n t t o the a u tho rity 1

o f t he C i vil S erv i ce M erit S yst em t o m ak e p erso nn el p o l i cy an d rules, d efi ne s a d ura t i o na l em p l o yee as fo l l o w s:

“ D ur at i onal empl oy ee” - - An empl oy ee who i s empl oy ed for a s peci f i c per i od ( i

. e. gr ant , cont r act or proje ct ) of t wel ve mo nt hs or l onger
. D ur at i o na l em pl oy ees recei ve al l be nef

i t s and are consi d ered t o b e in th e c lass i f i ed s ervi ce and t he
e q u iva le n t o f p e rm a n e n t e m p lo ye e s e x c e p t fo r the ter m na tur e o f t h e ir e m p lo ym e n t.

T he Shel by C ount y G over nment P er s onnel M ana gemen t S y s t em han db oo k def i nes “per manen t empl oy ee” 2 as foll o w s:

“ P er manen t empl oy ee” - - An empl oy ee whos e per manen t s t at us has been approved

at t h e compl et i on of

t h e or i g i n al e mpl oy men t pr obat i on ar y pe r i od a n d i s e l i g i bl e for a l l be n e f i t s a n d r i g h t s u n de r t h e Ci v i l S e r v i c e S y s t e m.

T hi s l et t er, f

rom R i t a C l ark, A ss ess o r o f P rop ert y , t o W and a Sha w, d at ed June 11 , 1 9 9 9 , read s, i n pe rt i nent 3 p art, as fo l l o w s:
W i t h t he c u r r e n t bu dg e t c u t ba c k s i n S h e l by Cou n t y Gov e r n me n t , i t h a s be c om e

n e c e ssa ry fo r u s to r e stru c tur e o u r o p e ra tio n s to c o m p le te th e 2 0 0 1 R e a p p ra isa l i n a t i m el y and ef

f i ci ent m anner.
A f t er caref ul l y revi ewing al l de p art m ent s wi t hi n our o f f i ce, we are el i m i nat i ng t he
s i x Acc ou n t an t B pos i t i on s i n Per s on al Pr oper t y
. T h e au di t w or k pe r for med by t hes e posi t i ons wi l l be out s our ced al ong w i t h t he l ar ger ac count s now bei ng ha ndl ed by a n ou t s i de f

i r m. (c o n tinu e d ...)

-2- du ratio na l e mpl oy e e in the Pr ivate I nd us try Cou nc il G rants pr og ram,

1 in the classified Civil Servi ce M er i t Sy stem on Marc h 1, 1985, completing her six (6) month pr obationary period on Aug ust 1, 1985.
13. I n 1996, Wanda Shaw applied, qua lified for, and was sele cted f or an Ac counting position i n the Shelby CountyTax Assessor’s Off ice. She beg an her

position i n the Assessor’ s Offic e on June 15, 1996, and serve d a six (6) [month] probationary term, bec oming a

reg ular pe rm a ne nt e mpl oy e e in the Civ il Se rv ic e Me ri t Sy ste m. 2
1 4

. Wa n d a Sh a w ’ s p o s it io n in th e T a x A s s e s s o r ’ s O f f ic e was eliminat ed pursuant to a reduc tion in force on June 11, 1999, and pursuant to p refere ntial placeme nt rig hts was place d back into the po sit ionin the Pr ivate I nc e nti ve Pr og ram. 15 . Sh e lby

Cou nty , by le tte r date d J un e 11 , 199 9, state d th a t it “ wi ll honor a ll b e n e f it s a n d o th e r

c o mm it me n ts ma d e to [Wan d a Sh a w ], and y our civil rig hts will be protected.” 3(

. . . con t i n u ed) 3 Jay B ai l ey , our D i r ector of P er s onnel , ha s al r eady met wi t h Count y P er s onnel
o f f i ci al s t o put y o ur name o n t he p ri o ri t y l i st fo r ot her Ac co unt ant B po si t i o ns wi t hi n Count y G over nment

. T hey wi l l he l p u s move y ou i nt o op eni ng s as t hey
o ccur.
T h is d e c isio n w a s n o t m a d e e a sily o r l igh tly. W e w e igh e d a ll the o p tio n s a v a ilab le and m ad e o ur decis i o n ba se d o n w h at was best fo r t he o veral l op erat i o n and our o b liga tio n to tax p a ye rs
. I a p p re c ia te yo u r c o n trib u tio n s to this o ff ic e a n d w ill
su p p o rt yo u r e ff

o rts to m o v e o n w ithin S h e lb y C o u n ty G o v e rn m e n t.
W h i l e Ju n e 11, 1999 w i l l be y ou r l as t day a t w or k , y ou w i l l be pa i d t h r ou g h J u l y 15, 1 9 9 9 , w ith the full am o u n t inc lud e d o n yo u r Ju n e 3 0 p a yc h e c k . W e w ill ho n o r a ll ben ef i t s a n d ot h er commi t men t s made t o y ou , an d y ou r ci v i l s er v i ce r i g h t s w i l l be pr ot ec t ed.

T h e M e m o ra n d u m fro m M a rth a L o tt, M a n a g e r, to W a n d a S h a w , d a te d A u g u st 3 , 2 0 0 1 , re a d s, in re le v a n t p a rt, 4 as foll o w s:
T hi s m em o i s t o i nfo rm you t hat t he JA IB G C o o rdinat o r po sitio n w i l l end

S e p t e m b e r 30 , 2001

. Th i s p o s i t i o n w i l l n o t b e r e f u n d e d w i t h F Y 2 0 0 0 J A I BG f un d s.
I t al k e d w i t h D anny K ai l and Ji m M art i n who s t at e t hat y o u ap p l i ed fo r and were hi red i nt o a durat i o nal po si t i o n at P IC

. D ue t o t he d urat i o nal s t at us, t here are no p refere nti al hiri ng ri gh t s.
A l et t er f

r om M ar k Al l en , a t t or n ey , t o T r i s h M on t ei l , As s i s t an t Se cr et ar y for t h e Ci v i l Se r v i ce M er i t B oar d, 5 d ated O cto b er 3 , 2 0 0 1 , rea d s, i n p erti ne nt p art, as fo l l o w s: (c o n tinu e d ...) -3- 16. O n Ju n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 0 , Wa n d a Sh a w w a s h ir e d a s a

d u r a ti onal e mpl oy e e a s a

Gr a nts Coo rd inator

fo r a Juve nil e Ac c ou nta

bil ity I ncentive B lock Grant (J AI BG ), within the Shelby CountyRevenue De pa rt me nt.
1 7

. Wa n d a Sh a w w a s in f o r me d b y me mo r a n d u m d a te d , A u g u s t 3, 2001, that her position with the Shelby CountyRevenue Depa

rtment would end on S ep t ember 30, 2001, beca use the g rant whic h funded t h e J A IB G p r o g r a m w o u l d n o l o n g e r b e r e c e i v e d b y S h e l b y C o u n t y. 4
18. Wanda Shaw wa s terminated f rom that position on S epte m b er 30, 2001.
19. On Octobe r 3 , 2 001, Wanda Shaw sent a reque st to the Shelby Co u n ty Ci v il Se r v ic e M e r it B o ar d , to ap p e a l h e r ter mi n a ti o n to that Boa rd. 5(

. . . con t i n u ed) 5 I h e re b y a p p e a l t h e ter m ina tio n o f M s . W a n d a S h a w fro m S h e lb y C o u n ty G ov er n men t ef

fec t i v e Se pt embe r 30, 2001 an d re qu es t a h ea r i n g be for e t h e Sh el by Coun t y Ci v i l Se r v i ce M er i t B oar d.

T his l ett er re ad s, i n re l ev an t p art, as fo l l o w s: 6

T he She l b y C o unt y E m p l o y ee H and b o o k (p. 34 ) s t at es t he fo l l o wi ng:

“C i vi l Servi ce M eri t B oa rd

– Fo r di sci p l i ne i nvo l vi ng a demot i on i n r an k or c ompen s at i on , s u s pen s i on w i t h ou t p ay for m o re t han t [en] (10 ) days and t erm i nat i o n.
T o be el i gi ble f o r a C i vi l Ser vi ce M er i t board appeal , an empl oy ee m ust fi l e a wr i t t en r eqBes t w i t h t h e Admi n i s t r at or of P er s onnel wi t hi n s eve n c al endar day s of r ece i pt of

t he wr i t t en n o tice o f t h e d isc ip lina ry a c tio n .”

It i s o ur p o si t i o n t hat she was no t t erm i nat ed f rom her p o si t i o n fo r d isc ip l i nary r ea s on s
. T h er ef

or e, s h e i s n ot el i g i bl e t o appe al t o t h e Ci v i l Se r v i ce M er i t B oar d.

F u rth e rm o re , M s. S h a w w a s in a d u ra tio n a l p o sitio n a n d ha s n o p la c e m e n t righ ts wi t h i n t h e C i vi l S ervi ce Sy s t em. M s
. Sh aw i s w el come t o a ppl y for a n y pos i t i on t hat s he m eet s t he m i ni m um qua l i f i cat i o ns fo r.

See fo o tno te 6 , s u p ra . 7
-4- 20 . O n O c tob e r 4 , 2 00 1, Dann y Kai l, the n Sh e lby Cou nty Administrator of Personne l, s en t a letter denying Wanda

Shaw’s reque st f or appea l, stating that since Wanda Shaw was not terminate d fo r d isc ipl ina

ry re a so ns , “ sh e is n ot e ligib le to a pp e a l to theCiv il Service Merit B oard.” 6
21. The Administrator of Personnel also stated in the Oc t o ber 4, 2001 letter that Wanda Shaw was a duratio n al employ ee and there fore ha d n o p la c e me nt rig hts

. 7 (Citations to R ecor d omitted).
OnSe pte mbe r 3 0, 20 02 , M s. Sha w f ile d a “ Complaint

fo r V iol a tio n o f D ue Pr oc e ss” a g a ins t the Shelby

CountyGovernment. Concerning cause s of ac tion, Ms. S haw’ s C o m plaint rea ds as fo llo ws : 16. The De fendant’s stated re ason that the funding for the Plaintiff’ s

position w a s n o lo n g e r a v a il ab le w a s n o t th e tr u e r e a s o n f

o r the Pla int if f’ s te rm inatio n a ndtheDe fe nd a nt a c te d in bad faithto a vo id-5- the C ivil S ervic e Merit Sy stem disciplinary require ments entitling the Plaintiff to appeal a

termination to the Civil S ervic e Merit Boar d.
17 . T he De fe nd a nt v iol a te d it s own C ivi l Se rv ic e Me ri t A c t, Te nn e sse e Private Ac ts o f 1 97 1 Ch apter 110, a s a me nd e d, wh e n it t erminated the Plaintiff, a cla ssified civil service employ ee w ithout cause
. 18

. Th e D e f

e n d a n td e p r i v e d t h e P l a i n t i f f o f h e r c i v i l r i g h t s in violation of 42 United S tates C ode, S ection 1983 whe n it terminated the Pl a in ti f

f, a te n u r e d e mp lo y e e , f

r o m h e r p o s it io n w ith o u t a pre

termination or post-termination hearing depriving her of he r j ob without due proce ss of law.
19 . The De fe nd a nt ha s con tin ue d to viol a te the She lby Cou nty Me ri t Ac t, T e nn e sse e Pr ivate Ac t of 197 1 Chapte r 1 10 , a s a me nd e d b y its failure and re fusal to g rant the Plaintiff priority place ment over othe r applican t s , even thoug h, the Plaintiff was a reg ular e mploy ee, not du ratio na l w he n s he wa s te rm inate d, ha vin g g a ine d h e r t e nu rea s a reg ular c ivil service e mploy ee a fter c ompleting pr obation in the CountyAssessor’s O fficein 1996.
Ms. Shaw was a llowed to amend he r plea ding. T he Amende d Complai n t , fi l ed on Fe bruary 18, 2003, ref ere nces the J une 11, 1999 letter from the Shelby CountyAssessor, in which the Assessor stated that Ms. Shaw’s c ivil service ri gh t s wo u ld be protec ted, se e su pr a at footnote 3. The Am e nd e d Co mpl a int

a ssert s th at “at no tim e didtheplaint if f w a ivehe r c ivi l se rv ic e status a s a reg ular e mploy ee.”
On Fe bruary

20, 2003, Shelby

Countyfiled its Answer. The Answer a sserts a violation of the applica

ble statute of limitations and states that “at no time was [ Ms. Shaw’s] status chang ed fr om durational employ ee to reg ular employ ee;” that Ms. Shaw’s position was eliminated due to lac k of funding ; and that bec ause Ms. Shaw w as not terminated for a disciplinary rea son, she did not qualify for a hearing be fore the Shelby CountyCivil Service Merit B oard. On September

16, 2003, the ca se wa s submitt ed to the t rial court upon “Stipulations for Trial on the Recor d.” The Stipul ations included both statements of f act, see abov e , and of la w. On Marc h 25, 2004 , t h e t ri al court entere d J udg ment in favor of Shelby County . The Judg me nt r e a ds , inre le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s:
1. Wan da Sha w w a s a

pe rm a ne nt e mpl oy e e un de r the She lby Cou nty civil service merit sy stem from June 1996 to J une 1999.-6- 2. That permanent status chang ed to a dur ational status when her perma nent position with t he Shelby County Assessor was e liminated and she a ccepted a g rant s co o rdinator position with the Shelby CountyRevenue Depa

rtment in J une 2000.
3

. T h e block g rant whic h funded that gr ants coordinator position ended in Septembe r 2001.
4. Ms. Shaw’s grants coordinator position was elimi nated whe n the g rant whic h funded he r position ended.
5. Ms. Shaw rema ined a dur ational employ ee at the time of termination of her

position i n September 2001.
6. Ac c or din g to the lan gua g e of Te nn e sse e 19 71 Pr ivate Ac ts, chapte r 1 1 0, cre ating the Civil S ervic e Merit Sy stem of Shelby County , as we ll as th e S h elby CountyGovernment personne l Manag ement Sy st em handbook, set out in t he Stipulations, a durat io n a l e mp lo y e e is n o t e n ti tl e d to a c iv il s e r v ic e h e ar in g u p on el i m i n at i o n o f t h e e m p l o y ee ’s p o s i t i o n fo r l o s s o f f u n d i n g.
7. For those rea sons, Wanda Shaw i s n ot entitled to a civil service hearing be fore the Shelby CountyCivil Service Merit B oard.
Ms. Sha w app e a ls fr om thi s Judg me nt a nd raise s the fo llo wi ng iss ue fo r r e vie w a s st a te d in her brief:
W het her theAp pe llant w a s e nti tle d to a he a ri ng be fo retheCiv il Service Merit B oard f

or her September 30, 2001, te rmination from theJuve nil e Ac c ou nta

bil ity I nc e nti veB l o c k

Gr an t ( JA IB G ) P r o g ram?
A. Whe the r the A pp e llant, wh o w a s inthec la ssi fi e d s e rv ic e wi th perma nent employ ee s t atus had the right to cha lleng e her transfe r from permanent employ ee status to dur ational employ ee status in an appea l to the Shelby

CountyCivil Service Merit B oard?
B . Wh e the r the Ap pe llant, wh o w a s to ld that he r ci vil se rv ic e ri g hts wo uldbe pr ote c te d w he n s he tr a ns fe rr e d f ro m pe rm a ne nt st a tus to durational status, has a

rig ht to challeng e h er termination from e mpl oyme nt?
As no te d a

bo ve , th is c a se wa s su bmi tte d to thetria l c ou rt up on sti pu latio ns of fa c t. It is w e ll settled in Tennesse e that, whe n a trial c ourt is called upon to make a findin g o f fac t based on-7-

uncontrove rted e vidence , its conclusion is one o f l aw, and the appe llate courts will review that fin d i ng as a que stion of law. Bill ington v. Crowder , 553 S.W .2d 590, 595 (Tenn. Ct. App.1977); Continental

Ins. C o. v. Cooper , 58 Tenn. App. 316, 430 S.W.2d 661 (1968). As a que stion of law, ou r r e vie w o f the tria l c ou rt’s J ud gment is de novo upon the re cord w ith no presumption of corr ectne ss acc ompany ing the trial court’ s conclusions of law. See Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) ; Waldron v. De lffs , 98 8 S.W. 2d 18 2, 18 4 (T e nn
. Ct. Ap p. 19 98 ); Sims v . St e war t , 973 S.W .2d 597, 599-600 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Ms. S h aw fi rst asserts that she had the right to cha lleng e her transfe r fr om permane nt e mpl oy e e status to d ur a tio na l e mpl oy e e status in an a pp e a l to theShe lby

Cou nty Civ il Se rv ic e Me ri t Boa rd. As set out above , in 19 9 6 , Ms. Shaw was hire d for an Acc ounting position in the Shelby CountyTax Assessor’s Off ice. She c ompleted h er six month probationary period a nd became a perma nent employ ee. O n J une 11, 1999, her position in the Tax Assessor’s Of fice was e liminated du e to a re du c tio n info rc e . A t th a t ti me , M s. Sha w r e c e ive d a lette r fr om the As se sso r o f P ro pe rty ( see footnote 3 above ), which indi ca t ed that Shelby Countywould “honor a ll benefits and other commitments made to y ou, and [that Ms.S haw’ s] civil rig ht s [would] be prote cted.” On J une 16, 20 00 , M s. Sha w a c c e pte d a du ratio na l po sit ionwi th the She lby Cou nty Re ve nu e De pa

rt me nt.
On appea l, Ms. Shaw asserts that the 1999 letter from the Assessor of Proper t yi n ef fect allows her to maintain he r status as a pe rmane nt employ ee des p i t e the fact that she a cce pted a du ratio na l po sit ionon June 16 , 2 00 0. B e c aus e he r d ur a tio na l po sit ionwa s late r e lim inate d, Ms. S ha w n ow a sse rt s th a t sh e sh ou ld b e ableto c ha lle ng e he r r e c la ssi fi c a tio n f ro m pe rm a ne nt t o durational e mploy ee. We disag ree
. Th e Civ il Se rv ic e Me ri t Sy ste m of She lby Cou nty wa s c re a te d by

theTe nn e sse e Pr ivate Ac ts of 1971, C hapter

110 (her einaf

ter, “ the Act” ) to provide a unified per sonnel sy stem for e mploy ees of theShe lby

Cou nty Go ve rn me nt. Th e Ac t pr ov ide s inSe c tio n 2 1, “ Ap po int me nts pe rm a ne nt: ”
Ex cept as otherwise provided in the Act, no em ployee in the classif

ied servicewh o is no t a d urational em ployee and who sha ll have succ essfully completed the pre scribed pe riod of probation and there fore has be e n pe r m ane nt ly a ppoi nt orinduc te d into th e sy st e munde rth e pr ovis io ns o f thi s A c t, sha ll be dismissed , suspended, demoted or subj ecte d to other discipline, e xc e pt

forc aus e
. (Emphasis adde d).
Un de r S e c tio n 2 1 o f the Ac t, wh e n Ms. Sha w co mpl e te d he r pr ob a tio na ry pe ri oda ndbe c a me a permanent employ ee in the T ax Assessor’s Off ice in 1996, she g ained a property interest in that position. Consequently , she could only be removed from that position “for cause .” S ection 22 of the Ac t de sc ri be s th e ty

pe s o f “ Di sc ipl ina

ry Ac tio n” that may

be le vie d a g a ins t a n e mpl oy e e , to wi t:-8- For unsatisfac t o ry

perf ormanc e of duties or

other just cause , an employ ee in the c lassified service may be subjec t to the following d i s c i p l i n e b y t h e ap p o i n t i n g au th o r i t y:

(a) Reprimand; (b ) S us pe ns ionwi tho ut p a y fo r a pe ri odno t to e xce e d 3 0 d a y s; (c ) R ed u ct i o n i n p aywi t h i n al l o wa b l e r an ge for c lass of employ ee; (d) De motion to a lower cla ssification; (e) Dismissal from service ; (f ) R etirment under

the terms of the Retirement Ac t, as applica ble.
I n the f i rst instance, the re is no indication in this recor d that Ms. Shaw was terminated from he r position wit h the Tax Asses s o r’s Office for any disciplinary

rea son. Rather, the “ Stipul ations of F a c t” ind ic a te that he r j ob wa s lo st a s a re su lt o f a re du c tio n info rc e . Se c tio n 2 3 o f the Ac t, i s e nti tle d “ Re ply

to D isc ipl ine ; app e a l f

ro m di sc ipl ine ” a ndre a ds , inpe rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s: Any employ ee demoted in r ank or compensation, suspended without pay for a period e x cee ding te n day s, or di smissed, may , within seven day s after service of the order of demotion, suspension, or dismiss al as her einabove provided, a ppeal to the boa

rd. Consequently , even if

we a ssume arguendo that Ms. Shaw had a cause of ac tion under the Ac t, by the terms of that Act, she ha d s ev en (7 ) d ay s from her dismiss al to file an a

ppeal with the B oard. Thereis no indication in the recor d, that Ms. Shaw followed this proce dure. Ag ain, there is no indication that Ms. S haw lost her position in 1999 due to any disciplinary action against her. I n terms of Ms. Shaw’s rights i n the case of a lay off, the Act provides in Section 25 , “ L a y of

f, ” a s f oll ow s:
No tw ith stand ing theoth e r p ro vis ion s o f this Act, in the eve nt that c onditions i n any department or off ic e o f th e c o u n ty o r th e f

in a n c ia l c o n d it io n o f

the county nece ssitate s a re duction in the workfor ce, the require d reduc tion shall be made in such class or c la sse s a s th e app oin tin g aut hori ty de sig nate s. Fa vorable consideration must , howeve r, be g iven t o w ar d r e t e n t i o n o f

t h o s e e m p l o y e e s i n t h e h i g he st c la ss o f p os ition s. I f n e c e ssa ry to a c hie ve the ir re te nti on e mpl oy e e s may be t empor ari ly

de mot e d to a low e r c la ss o f p os iti on . T he de te rm inatio n a s to-9- whi ch em ploy ees w ithin a particular class ar e to be laid off rests with the sound discretion of the appointing authority and will be based on s uch considerati o n s as service r ating s, seniority and other re l ev ant factors. Any employ ee laid off or t empora rily demoted to a lowe r cla ss of position under this sec tion shall be g iven priority o v er other app lic a nts to r e ins tate me nt t o his f orme r p os iti on or

to a c omp ara blepo sit ionin the sy ste m. The Shelby

CountyGovernment Personnel Mana g ement Sy stem handbook addr esses lay offs a nd re du c tio ns in f

or c e a s f oll ow s: Policy No. 411, “L ay offs” : The a ppointing authority

may sep ar ate any perma nent employ ee , without prejudice, be cause of lack of funds, curtailmen t o f work or rea sons of eff iciency . The orde r of l ay o ffs shall be ba sed upon perf ormanc e ratings, l eng th of servic e and othe r pertinent fa ctors under

the formula established by the Ad min ist rat or [ of Pe rs on ne l]. N o b ump ing is pe rm itt e d o f o the r e mpl oy e e s inoth e r d e pa rt me nts who hold the same c lass position unl ess spec ified by a ba rg a ini ng un it a g re e me nt. Th e na me s o f a ll employ ees who are laid off shall be reported t o t he Administrator by

the depa rtment or age ncy , and at the reque st of t he indi vidual employ ee, the administrator shall place these na mes on a re -employment reg ister. No permanent employ ee, how ever , shall be sepa rate d f o r s u c h r e a s o n w h i l e t h e r e ar e e m e r g e n c y, t e m p o r ar y, provisional, or probationary employ ees serving in the same c lass or position in the Count y service

. Th e She lby

Cou nty Emplo y e e Handbo ok

state s a s to re du c tio n info rc e that:
I n th e e ve nt of a la y of

f, c on sid e ratio n w ill be g ive n to leng th of service and perf ormanc e ratings. I f l aid off, a re g ular c lassified employ ee may reque st the Administrator of Human Re source s to place his or he r name on a

re- employ ment reg ister that allows for pref ere ntial placeme nt for as long as one y ear
.-10-

Following the re duction in forcein 1999, Ms. Shaw acc epted a p o s i t i on as a dur ational employ ee wi th the She lby Cou nty Re ve nu e De pa rt me nt. Th e re is no ind ic a tio n that sh e wa s c aus e d to take thi s position under any

duress or coer cion. Ms. Shaw ’s perma nent employ ee position with the Assessor was one of si x positions abolished as a result of a reduc tion in forc e and, acc ording to the 1999 letter the position were to “ be outsource d along with the larg er a ccounts now be ing handled by an outside firm.” B efor e the notification letter was de livered to Ms. Shaw, the Assessor’s dire ctor of pe rsonnel had “a lrea dy

met with County Personnel officia ls to put [Ms. Shaw’s] name on the priority list” for other jobs in the County . Pursuant to the applicable sections of the Act and the Handbook de aling with lay offs a nd reduc tions in force, it appe ars that Ms.Shaw’ s civil service p re fe re n tial reemploy ment rig hts, as a permanent employ ee with the Assessor, wer e honored just a s the Assessor promised i n the not ification l etter when Ms

. Shaw was place d back into Shelby Countyemploy ment in her durational employ ee position as a Grants Coordinator.
Wan d a Sh a w w a s in f

o r me d b y me mo r a n d u m, d a te d A u g u s t 3 , 2 0 0 1 , th a t h e r p o s ition as Gra nts Coordinator with the Shelby CountyRevenue Depa

rtment wou ld e nd on September 30, 2001, b e c au s e t h e g r a n tt h a tf

u n d e d t h e J A IB G p r o g r a m w o u l d n o l o n g e r b e r e c e i v e d b y S h e l b y C o u n t y. Ms. Shaw filed a notice of appea l with the Boa rd within the seven ( 7) day period discussed a

bove. The B oard de nied her reque st to revie w the termination and Ms. Shaw asserts that suc h was in direc t violation of her c ivil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. W e disag ree
. To support her position, Ms. Shaw relies upon th i s C ourt’s opinion in Arm strong v. Te nne sse e De

p’t. of V e te ra ns Af

fa irs , 959 S.W .2d 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). In that case , one month after a ch an ge i n t h e gu b er n at o ri al ad m i n i s tra t i o n , M r. Ar m s tro n g’s n ew s u p er i o r “ re classified Mr. Armstrong ’s position from car eer service[i .e. civil servic e prote ction] t o executive servic e status. Only

two day s following the rec lassification...[the new superior] terminated Mr . Armstrong from this position.” Id . at 596

. Un l i ke the c ase a t bar, Mr. A rmstrong ’s ca se involved a blatant subterfug e in that he was clea rly rec lassified in or der to by pass due proce ss. Her e, n o such su bte rf ug e is a pp are nt f ro m th e sti pu late d f

a c ts. I n a dd iti on , th e c ivi l se rv ic e sy st em at is sue i n Armstr ong provided that “Mr. Armstrong could not be deprived of his prope rty rig ht by ‘suspension, demotion, dis m issal, or any other a ction’ without minim al due pr ocess.” Id . at 59 8 ( e mph a sis in orig inal). The Armstr

ong Court r elied upon this lang uag e to rule that a hea ring was re quired ba sed upon the subterf

ug e prese nt in Mr. Armstrong ’s ca se. In contra st, the Shelby Countycivil service sy stem provides for due proce ss he aring s under certain, specifie d circ umstances that a ll arise fr om disciplinary actions against an employ ee. We f ind nothing, howe ver, in the A ct that g ives rise to a rig ht to a hearing if an employ ee’ s position is abolished for a leg itimate rea son such as re structuring o r , a s in th e c a s e a t b ar , th e e n d in g o f a g r a n t. A s s e t o u t in 1 5 A A m. Ju r
. 2 d Civil Service § 82 (2000):
As a g e ne ra l rul e , the abo lit ion of a c ivi l se rv ic e of

fi c e or po sit ionin the intere sts of economy

may be done without notice or hea ring to the empl oy ee a ffe cted ther eby , unless a statute re quires notice and he ari ng be fo re the po sit ion is abo lis he d. I f su c h ri g hts arepr ov ide d to-11- the employ ee, the failure to give them invalidates the a bolishment of the position.
The a bolition of the pos ition cannot be ar bitrary or done in ba d faith. I f the a bolition of a posit i o n i s n o t in good f aith, the af

fec ted employ ee ha s the rig ht to a full hearing on the issue. (F ootnotes omitt ed). Although w e can find no Tenne ssee c ases dire ctly supporting the proposition set out in t he abo ve se c tio n o f A m.Jur .2 d, oth e r j urisd ic tio ns ha ve lon g he ld that g oo d f a ithabo lis hme nt o f a

c ivi l serviceposition does not give rise to a rig ht to a hearing. Se e , e .g ., Wo od

v . L ov e le ss , 244 I owa 919, 58 N.W.2d 368 (1953) (“ The authority which cr eate s an off

ice may abolish it, if it doe s so in good faith .” ); Cov e

y v . Ci ty of Pl ain fi e ld , 11N.J . 375, 94 A.2d 669 (1953) (“The c ity , howeve r, could at a ny tim e abo lis h p la int if

f’ s [po si ti on ] fo r any

le g iti mate re a so n.
.. wi tho ut f ir st g ivi ng him

a he ari ng .” ); City and Coun ty of De nv e r v . N

or ris , 131 Colo. 259, 281 P.2d 160 (1955) (“It may be acc epted a s well established that c ivil service l aw s d o n o t g uarantee tenur e positions that are no lon ger re q u ired. Such positions may be abolished if, in g ood faith, such a re c onsidered to be no longe r a public ne cessity .”).
As discussed above , there is no indication in thi s rec ord that Ms. Shaw was terminated from he r p os iti on a s G rants Coo rd inator fo r any re a so n othe r than the los s o f a g rant. Like wi se , th e reis no indication that she wa s terminated f rom her position in the Tax Assessor’s Off ice f or any rea son other than a

leg itimate reduc tion in force. In the abse nce of bad faith on the part of the employ er, as was the c ase in Armstr ong , a legitimate abolishm ent of a civil serviceofficeor position does not g ive rise to the right to a hearing under the Shelby Countycivil service sy stem. As this Court st ated in Cas e v . She lby Coun ty Civ il Se rv . M e rit Boa rd , 98 S.W .3d 167, 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) “ [t ]he mos t f un da me nta l ele me nt of du e pr oc e ss is the op po rtun ity to b e he arda t a me a nin g fu l ti me a ndin a meaningf

ul manner.” The Court g oes on t o say that due proc ess re quires an opportunityto confront and cr oss-examine witnesses “whe re the decision to terminate e mploy ment turns on determinations o f issue s of fa ct.” Id . at 17 5. I n th e ins ta nt c a se , th e reis a sti pu latio n o f f

a c t in dic a tin g that Ms

. Shaw’s positi o n s wereeliminated bec ause of “a r eduction in forc e” and “bec ause the g rant whic h funded the [posi tion] would no longer b e re ce i v ed by Shelby County .” The re is no indication of subterfug e or c oerc ion. The positions are simply g one. Consequently , nothing would be g ained by a h ea ri n g.
For the fore g oing r easons, the Judgme nt of the t rial court is affirmed. Costs of this appea l ar e a s s e s s e d a g a i n s tt h e A p p e l l a n t , W a n d a S h a w , a n d h e r

s u r e t y.

__________________________________________-12- W. F RANK CRA WF O R D , PR E S I D I N G JU D G E , W. S.