### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NASHVILLE

PAMELA LANNOM, ) ) Petitioner/Appell

ant, )

) Appeal No. ) M1999-00137-COA-R3-CV VS. ) ) Davidson Chancery ) No. 98-2619-III(II) BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ) THE METROPOLITAN ) GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE ) AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, ) ) Respondent/Appellee. )
APPEALED FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY

AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE THE HONORABLE CAROL L. MCCOY, CHANCELLOR

JAMES G. THOMAS KENDRA E. SAMSON 150 Fourth Avenue No

rth Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Attorneys for

Petitioner/Appell

ant FRANCIS H. YOUNG Metropolitan Attorney 204 Metropolitan Cour

thouse Nashville, Tennessee 37201 Attorney for Respondent/Appellee

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

BEN H. CANTRELL, PRESIDING JUDGE, M.S. CONCUR: KOCH, J. COTTRELL , J.


### O P I N IO N

The Davidson County B oard of Education conducted a term

ination hearing for a tenured tea cher who had been caught on videotape stealing pi

lls from a student’s prescript ion bottle. After the heari ng, the teacher was dismissed 

# FILED
March 6, 2000 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Cou rt Clerk-2-

from her position. She sub sequently filed aPetition for Wr itof Certiorari, which
was dismissed after a Chancery Court hearing. We affirm the Chancery C

ourt.
I. A Sting Oper

ation

Pamela Lannom was a te nured speci al edu catio n teac her at Hickma n Eleme ntary School Annex in Dav idson County. Th

e school had experie

nce d eight incidents over two years in w hich Ritalin was disc

overed to be miss

ing from prescription

bottles which were held for chi ldren at the school.Most of the incidents occurred when the Ritalin was being stored under lock and key in the school’s office.

After each incident, the principal contacted the Police Departm ent and the Director of Security for the schoo l system. Eventually, the Police Department

agreed to install a small video surveillance c amera in t he school office, w hich wa s train ed on th e desk o f Mrs. Be tty Ivy, th e schoo l secret ary. Mrs. Iv y’s j ob included logging in the students’ Ritalin s upplies, keeping the drugs s ecure, a nd dis pensin g them to the app ropria te chil dren ea ch day.

An old prescription pill b ottle labeled “

Methylpheni d ate” was placed in a n unlocke d drawer in the sec retary’s desk. Methylpheni date is the generic name for Ritalin. Twelve baby aspirin, which resem ble 5-milligram Ritalin pills, were placed in the bottle. The secretary counted the pil ls twice a day to make sure their number remained con stant.

On the afternoon of Fe

bruary 9, 1998,

two weeks after

the sti n g operation began, Mrs. Ivy counted the pi lls and noticed that some of them were missing. The surveillance tape was removed and view ed by mem

bers of the Police Department,

the Principal, and othe

r schoolofficials. Mrs. Lannom was identified as the person

who reached into the

secretary’ s desk drawer, pop ped the-3-

top off the bottle, pour

ed some of the pi

lls into her hand, re

placed the

top of the bottle, put it back into the desk drawer, and slip

ped the pill s into h er jacket pocket , all whi le carryi ng on a c onvers ation w ith Mrs . Ivy.

Two days later, Detec t ive Daniel Postiglione of the Metropolitan Police Department conducted an interview with Mrs. Lannom. H e first asked her if she had taken the pills . She denied doing s o. Sh e was then confront ed with four still pictures from the video, after which she admitted taking the pills, going to the bathroom to

inspect them,

and flushing them

down the toilet.

Immediat ely afte rwar ds, Mrs. Lannom met with the pr

incipal, the vice-principal and with Dr. Susa n Goss, t he Director of Certified Elementary Personnel. Dr. Goss told her that she had two choic

es: she could

resign, and the pil l incident would never become public; or she could defend her co nduct in a dismissal hearing before the School Board. Mr

s. Lannom was gi

ven 48 hours so she could discuss her options with her fam ily and herattorney befor e making up her mind. Two da

ys later, Mrs . Lannom’ s attorney conta cted M s. Goss and informed her that Mrs. Lanno m was not going to resign

.

On March 19, 1998, Superinte ndent of Schools Dr. Bill Wise sent
aletter to the Boar

d of Education,recomme

nding Mrs. Lannom ’s dismissal f rom employm ent on the basis of “conduc t unbecoming a m ember of the te

aching profession

consisting of dishonesty

and unreliability as set forth in Tenn. Code. Ann. § 49-5-501(3)(

C).” The lette

r went on: “This charge is justifi

ed byMrs. Lannom’s denial of, then subsequent

admission to, ta

king tablets fro m a child’s prescription

bottle in the secretary’s desk at the Hickman Elementary

School Annex. The taking of the tablets was videotaped by the Metro politan Police Depart ment.”-4- A copy of this le

tter was sent

to Mrs. Lannom’s attorney, together witha memora

ndum provided by

the Commis sioner of Education advising Mrs. Lannom of her legal duties, rights and recourse.

II. Proceedings before the Board

The hearing before the Boa rd of Ed ucation t ook place in five we ekly installments

which totaled 17 hour

s. Ninete en witnes ses testified in all. The Board members also viewed the surv eill ance vi deotape and listened to an audiotape of Detective Postiglione’s interview of M rs. Lann om. One entire evenin g was de dicate d to Mrs . Lannom’s testimo ny.

On direct questioning,

Mrs. Lannom

testifie d abo ut her nineteen y ear career as a special education teacher. She then gave her account of th e events of November 9, 1998. Mrs. Lannom said that she was sitting at Ms. Ivy’s desk af ter lunch, and took a phone cal l from a parent. She needed to jot down
anote, and opened the desk drawer to get a pencil, when she saw the pill bottle. She shook it, and asked Mr s. Ivy if she knew about the bottle. Mrs. Ivy replied that she had it under c

ontrol.

Mrs. Lannom testif

ied that she was som

ewha t surprised by Mrs. Ivy’s off-hand response,

because keeping pill s in an unlocked locati on was a violation of the security

procedures that had been put in place to prevent further disappearances of Ritalin. She sa id that she

opened the bottle to

have a look at the pills, and she could see that they weren’t Ritalin. She then cover tly shook
some out into her hand, an d put themin her pocket so she could take a closer look at the m.

After leaving the office , she checked the pi lls against a prescr

iption pill book she kept

in her classroom

, but couldn’t identify them. She then called-5-

her husband, who advised her not to get involved in playing detective, and to just getrid of the p ills, which she did. She couldn’t explain w hy she took the pills in the first place, but described it as an impulsive and foolish act. Sh

e said she didn’t return the pills to the bottle , because

she was unable to do so surrept itiously , and would have been embarrassed to tell Mrs. Ivy that she had taken them.

Atthe conclusion of all t estimony, the Board discussed t he evidence. All th e Board m embers agree

d that Mrs. Lannom

was guilty of conduct unbecoming a m ember of the te

aching profession, c

onsisting of dishonesty

and unreliability . There was so me disag reement as to w hat the appropriate

punishment should be, with some members favoring dismissal, and others recomme

nding the lesser penalty

of suspension without

pay. In the en

d, the Board voted 5-3 to

terminate Mr

s. Lannom’ s employm

ent.
III. Proceedings in the Trial Court

On August 27, 1998, Mrs. Lannom filed a Pet ition for Writ of Certior ari in the Chancery C ourt, which, unde

r Tenn. Code. A

nn. § 49-5-513,
was her sol e avenue of

appeal. In her pe

tition, Mrs. Lan

nom argued that t

he proceedings before the Board deprived her of due p rocess, and that the

finding of guilt was against the

weight of the evide

nce. She also arg

u ed that th e punishment

of dismissal was extreme, and was disproportionate to her admitted offense of taking fo ur baby aspirin that di d not belong to h er.

The Chancellor noted tha t the scope of review in a certiorari a ction is narrow. Yokley v. State , 632 S.W.2d 1 23 (Tenn. Ct . App. 1981 ). The court’s function in such a proceeding i s not to rul e on the intr insic correctness of the judgment below. It ma

y not reverse

the board i f its judgment is supported by-6-

materialevidence, unless the board has excee ded its jurisdiction, or has otherwise acted unla wfully, arbitrarily or fraudulen tly.

After revi ewing the evidence , the court conclude d that Mrs. Lannom had not be en deprive d of due pro cess, that the Board’s actio n was supported by material facts, that the fi ndin g of guilt was not arb itrary or caprici ou s, and that termin ation was not a dispro

portionate punishm

ent for the offense. The co

urt accordingly

dismissed the pet

ition. This appeal

followed.

IV. Notice and

Due Process

The causes for which a teacher may be d i smissed include “incompetence, inefficiency , neglect of duty , unprofessional cond uct and insubordinatio n.” Tenn. Code. Ann. § 49-5-511. Under that statute, a teacher who is charged with an o

ffense that might

justify dism

issal must rece

ive a copy of the charges in wr iting, sp ecifically sta ting the offenses wh

ich are charged. However, as our Supreme Court said in

Turk v. Franklin Special School District , 640 S.W.2d 218 (1 982)

“. . . the technica l nice ty required in in dictments is not necess ary. The proc edure p rescrib ed by the sta tute is designed to insure the teac her a full hearing befo re the Board upon every issue u

nder consideration

by that b ody. To accomplish

this the first

essential is a notice

sufficient in substance and

form to fairly apprise the teacher of the charge against him and e

nable him to preparehis defense in advance of the heari ng.” 640 S.W.2d at 220

.

Once a teacher has re

ceived a notice of

charges, she is entitled to a hearing where she may plead her case, compel the appearance of witnesses by
su bpoen a, examine them under oath, and cro ss-examine the witnesses against her. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 49-5-512. Mrs. Lannom does not claim that she was deprived of any of these ri ghts.-7- Instead, her dueprocess argume nts focus on the

difference between the charging language contained in Dr. Wise’s letter of March 19, 1998 an

d the findings of the Board. The letter states that the “charge is justified by Mr s. Lannom’s denial of, then subsequent admission t o, taking t ablets fro m a child’s prescri ption bottle in the secretary’s desk at the Hickman Elem entary Sch oo l Annex.” But Mrs.Lannom argues that she never denie

d taking the tablets.

She explains Detective

Postiglion e’s t estimony to t he contrary by assertingthat he asked her if she took the Ritalin, and tha

t she denied it because she knew the

pills she took were n

otRitali n. Her ex planat ion so unds u nlikel y, particu l arly

in view of the detec

tive’s testim

ony as to her cha

nge of demeanor after she was confronted

withthe photos from the vid eo. In any case, the Board did not specifically f

ind that she lied to the

detective, but foc

used instead on the underlying conduct that led him to interview her.

Appellant concedes that she w

as giv en suffi cient notice that she would have to def

en d herself against the

charge of taking the

tablets. But she claims that it was inequitable for the B oard to impose the ultimate penal

ty of termination

without proving every charge it chose to level against her, and that the notice was deficie nt because it did no t warn her of that poss ibility.

We do not agree. The

notice Mrs. Lanno

m received w

as sufficient to apprise her of the c

harges she would be r

equired to defend,

and of the possibility

that s he cou ld be d ismi ssed. Taking the tablets w as clearly the primary of

fenseshe was charged with, and by far the most serious

one. We do not fault the appella

nt for trying to e

levatethe importance of a secondary issue like whether

or not she lied to the de

tective, in light of the fact that her primary transgression

was c aptured on videotape. However, we

are certain that

the notice Mrs. Lannom and her attorneys rec

eived made them

fully aware that she could lose her job f

or taking the pills.-8- V. The Severity of the Punishment

The appellant

emphasizes Mrs. Lannom’s previously unblemished nineteen year career in special education, and argues that in light of that career, the punish ment imposed for a single impulsive and foolish act was excessive, and was a n arbitrary a

nd capricious abuse of

the Board’s autho

rity. She see

ks to mi tigate her offense by insisting that it is uncontested that she did not steal Ritalin, and that atworst, she stole four baby aspirin, which were worth less than
adollar. She also denies that she ever harbored the intention to steal Rit alin, and insists that she realized t

hat the tablets

were not Ritalin before she removed them from the bottle. T his is somewhat at odds wi th the testimony of Detective Postiglione, who stated that Mrs . Lannom told hi m that she didn’ t realize the pill s were n’t Ri talin unti l she i nspe cted t hem in t he bat hroo m.

The caliber of a teaching career may be taken into account when deter mi ning the penalty for an offense caused by a lapse of judgment. Turk v. FranklinSpecial School

District , 640 S.W.2d 218 (1982). However, the Board did not view Mrs. Lannom’s of

fense as a mino

r one, nor do we. In the context of the c oncern felt in the school abou t previous disappeara

nces of Ritalin, th

e taking of these pillswas a highly ir responsible

act. Th ough Mrs. La nnom cl aims that she knew the pills w ere not R itali n, she admits th

at she was unable to determine what they actually were. Thus, for all s he knew, she was taking prescription

medications that a student nee ded . She then compounded her offense by destroying the evidence. Her conduct may not re

quire dismissal,

but it does not preclude it either.

In the end, the decisi

on was for the

school board to make, with the courts empowered to

r eve rse that decision only if it could be shown to be-9-

arbitrary or capricious. We do not bel iev e the appellant has m ade such a showing.
VI. A Dispute over Discovery

Prior to the final hearing

in Chancery Co

urt, Ms. Lannom served

six discovery requests on the Board that wou ld have required it,

among other thing s, to produce the personnel files of other tenured teachers if they had been subject to disciplinary pr

oceedings for m

iscond uc t, if they had been identified as substance abusers, or if the y had resigned or

retired while unde

r suspicion of having committed

thefts on school property. The Board of Education responded by filing a motion for a protective order in the trial court. After a hearin g, the trial court granted the protective order.

M rs. Lannom argues

on appeal that the tr

ial court’s acti

o n was a violation of the Public Records Act, Tenn. Code. Ann. § 10-7-501, et seq. , and that it prevented her fro

m proving that the

penalty imp

osed on her by the

Board
w as arbitrary or

capricious, beca

use disproportionate w

hen compared to

th e penalties imposedagainst other teachers for similar offenses. She r

elies on Tenn. Code. Ann. § 49-5- 513(g) which reads ,

The cause sha

ll stand for trial and s

hall be heard and determined

at the earliest practical date, as o ne having precedence over other litigatio n, except suits involvi

ng state, county or mu

nicipal revenue. The revi ew of the courtshall be limited

to the written record of

the hearing before the board and

any evidence or

exhibits submitted atsuch hea ring. Additional evidence or testimony

shall not be admitted exc

ept as to establish ar

bi trary or capricious ac tion or violation of sta tutory or consti

tutiona l rights by the board.

Without attempting to fu

rther delineate th

e scope that should be afford ed to the final sentenc e of the above statute , we note that it does no t invalidate the general princi

ple that the

writ of certiorari is not designed to afford
alitigant a second hearing

to substitute for one w

hose result was disa

ppointing.-10-

The writ is designed, r

ather, to allow th

e court toreview the record for evidence of some fundamental illegality in t he proceedings bel ow. See State v. Johnson , 569 S.W.2d 808 (Tenn. 1978). The grant or denia l of the writ is

always within the sou nd discreti on of the court. Yokley v. State , 632 S.W.2d 123(Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

The chancellor listene d to arguments on b

oth sides during th

e hearing on the motion for protective order, and found each of the discovery requests to be improper

on the grounds or relevance, confidentiality, or privilege. Because she had not yet read

the record, she di

d not make a conc

lusive statement
as to whether or not the

petitioner had enj oyed full discove ry during the hea

ring before the Board of Educ ation.

However, the record reveal s th at the Board gave Mr s. Lannom ample o pport unity for discovery, and that it granted virtually every discovery request she made, includi

ng numerous requests for informati on under the Public Records Act. Because t

he Board could

dedicate only one

session per week to

her case, her hearing unfolde d at a leisurely

pace. Mrs. Lannom

was able to reques

t whatever documents she de

emed necessar

y to her defense after

each session, and have the requests respond ed to before the next

hearing date. All the evidence she deemed releva

nt was included in the

record of the hear

ing.
Appellant argues that duringthe Board hearing, she did not request the personnel files now at issue, because she had no way of anticipating that the Board would decide to ter minate her wi

thout conclusive proof

that she lied to Detecti ve Postigli one about taking the pills. But as we have indicated above, that argument is withou t merit.

VII.-11- The order of the trial

court is affir

med . Remand this cause to the Chancery Court of Davidson Co unty for furthe

r proceedings

consistent with

this opinion. Tax the cos ts on appeal to the a ppellant, Pamela Lannom.

_______________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL, PRESIDING JUDGE, M.S. CONCUR:

____________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

____________________________ PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JUDGE