### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE ATJAC KSON JA NUA RY21, 201 0 S es sio n JACQ UELI NE REDMON v . CITY OF MEMPH IS , ET AL 

### .
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C h a n ce ry C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. C H

- 08- 2201- 2 A rnol d G ol di n, C hancel l or

N o. W 2009- 01520- C O A

- R 3- C V - F i l ed F ebruary 19, 2010

A C ity o f M e m p h is e m p lo y e e w a s te rm in a ted a fte r ac c e ss in g a c ity -o w n e d d a tab a se to o b tain t he t el ephone num berof a pol i ce off i cer w ho had ar r es t ed herhus band and c al l i ng t he of f i cer athi s hom e t o i nqui r e about t he ar r es t

. B ot h t he C i t y of M em phi s C i vi l Ser vi ce Com m i s s i on a n d th e tr ia l c o u rt u p h e ld h e r t e rm in a tio n , a n d w e a ffir m
.

T enn. R
. A pp. P
. 3; A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C hancery C ourt A f f i rm ed

A L AN E. H I GHERS , P .J ., W

. S. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of the C our t , i n w hi ch H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J. , and J. S TEV EN S TAFF ORD , J

. , j oi ned.

T hom as E

. H ans om , L ei gh H

. T hom as , M emphi s , T ennes s ee, fort he appe l l ant , J acque l i ne R edmon

B ruce M cM ul l en, Im ad A b dul l ah, T ony a J ohns on, M emphi s , T ennes s ee, fort he appe l l ee, C ityo f M e m p h isA c c or ding to a March 1 2, 2008 letter, the Mem phis Police Internal Affairs report sustained the 1 alleg ations that Appellant had v iolated PM 6 2- 12, Em

pl oyee Con duct, and

PM 70- 05, C onfidentiality of Medical rec ords.
-2- OP I NI ON

I. F ACTS & P ROCEDURAL H I ST ORY

J acque l i n e R ed m on ( “A ppel l ant ”) w as hi r ed as a bene fi t s s peci al i s tfort he C i t yof M emphi s ( t he “Ci t y ”) i n D ece m berof 2005. I n t hi s capa ci t y , s he w as r es pons i bl e for
m ai nt ai ni ng benef

i t s i nfor m at i on for C i t y empl oy ees and had acc es s t o empl oy ees ’ per s onal i nform at i on, i ncl udi ng s oci al s ecur i tynum bers, ad d resse s, d ep en d en t and sp o u se i nform at i on, phone number s , s al ar i es , garni s hm ent s , and bene fi t s i n for m at i on. A ft erA ppel l ant ’ s hus band
w a s a rre ste d in N o v e m b e r o f 2 0 0 7 , A p p e llan t a c c e ss e d th e C ity ’s O ra c le d a tab a se to o b tain t he t el ephone numberof t he ar r es t i ng offi cer , O ffi cerD arnel l G ooch, and s he ca l l ed O ffi cer G o o c h a t h is h o m e to in q u ir e a b o u t th e a rr e s t.

O ffi cerG ooch w as ups etbyA ppel l ant ’ s t el ephone ca ll as h e had r ece nt l ybeen the vi c t i m o f i d e n t i t y t h e f

t

. Th u s , h e c a l l e d t h e Ci t y ’ s b e n e f i t s o f f i c e t o v e r i f

y t h a tA ppel l ant
w or ked fort he C it y , and he a l s o m etw i t h A ppel l ant ’ s s uper vi s or , Pear l G i bs on, r egar di ng t he i nci dent

. O ffi cerG ooch fi l ed a fo rm al compl ai ntw i t h hi s s uper vi s or s , w hi ch w as ul t i m at el yforw ar ded t o t he “s ecur i t ys quad[. ] ”

Fol l ow i ng t he pol i ce de par t m ent ’ s i nt ernal aff ai r s i nves t i gat i on w hi ch s us t ai ned the
a lleg a tio n s a g a in st A p p e llan t, M s. G ib so n p re p a re d a d isc ip lin a ry sta tem e n t. A c c o rd in g to 1 M s
. G i bs on, s he then m etw i t h A ppel l antt o r evi ew t he pol i ce f i ndi ngs
. A ppel l ant acknow l edged the trut h of the fa ct s cont ai ned w i t hi n t he pol i ce i nt erna l af fai r s r epor t , and sh e w as term inated v ia a M arc h 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 let ter.

R ecogni zi ng t hati thad fa i l ed t o conduct a fa ct

- fi ndi ng hear i ng, t he C i t yi s s ued a l et t er on M ar ch 18, 2008, r es ci ndi ng A ppel l ant ’ s t erm i nat i on, r ei ns t at i ng her em pl oym ent , and placi ng her on a dm i nis t rat i ve leave pen ding a fact fi nd i ng heari ng
. A second letter , al so dat ed M ar ch 18, 2008, w as s entt o A ppel l ants chedul i ng a hear i ng for M ar ch 24, 2008, and char gi ng herw i t h t hr ee vi ol at i ons : PM 38- 02; PM 78- 04; and PM 66- 12.

A fac tfi ndi ng hear i ng w as conduct ed on M arch 24, 2008, atw hi ch A ppel l antw as aff or ded an opportuni t yt o s peak on he row n behal f. A ccor di ng t o t he C i t y , A ppel l ant
a d m itt e d to a c c e ss in g th e d a tab a se to re triev e O f f ice r G o o c h ’s te lep h o n e n u m b e r a n d to cal l i ng hi m athom e r egar di ng herhus band’ s arr es t , buts he i nsist ed t hats he had done not hi ng w r ong. I n an A pr i l 14, 2008 l et t er , A ppel l antw as t erm i nat ed forvi ol at i ng t he thr ee-3-

abo ve-m enti on ed p oli ci es.
A ppel l a n ta p p e a l e d h e rt e r mi n a t i o n t o t h e Ci t y ’ s Ci v i l Se r v i c e Commi s s i o n ( t he “C om m i s s i on”) , and a he ar i ng w as hel d on Sept ember5, 2 0 0 8

. A t the hear i ng, A ppel l ant tes tifie d th a t sh e h a d a c q u ire d O f f ice r G o o c h ’s te lep h o n e n u m b e r th ro u g h th e O ra c le dat abas e, t hat s he knew s he w as onl y t o acc es s t he dat abas e for“j ob funct i on[s ] , ” and that hert el ephone c al l t o O ffi cerG ooch had notbeen w or k- r el at ed. H ow ever , s he cl ai m ed that sh e h ad n o inten ti o n to h arm O ff icer G o o ch , an d that sh e h ad o n lyco n tacted h im “f o r [h er]
ow n s afe t y
. ” She al s o poi nt ed out t hatt he t el ephone c onver s at i on w as pol i t e and thati thad la s te d o n ly ap p ro x im a te ly o n e m in u te

. O n O c to b e r 2 , 2 0 0 8 , the C o m m iss io n u p h e ld A p p e llan t’s te rm in a tio n , u n a n im o u sly concl udi ng: ( a) t hatM s
. R edmon had acce s s ed the O r acl e d at a bas e t o obt ai n cont act i nfor m at i on for O ffi cerG ooch, w ho had r ece nt l yarr es t ed herhus band; ( b) t hat
s h e h a d u s e d t h a ts e n s i t i v e i n f o r ma t i o n t o c o n t a c tOf

f i c e rGo o c h a th i s h o me w hi l e he w as off dutyt o di s cus s herhus band’ s arr es t ; ( c) t hat her acc es s t o t he O r acl e dat a bas e for t hat purpos e w as unr el at ed t o herempl oym entdut i es and forherper s onal benef i t ; ( d) t hatt he i nfor m ati o n o b t ai ned byherw as confi dent i al ; ( e) t hat fr om her pr evi ous w or k exper i ence , as w el l as fr om her C i t y j o b t r a i n i n g , s h e k n e w, o rs h o u l d h a v e k n o wn, t h e i n f o r ma t i o n s h e was acc es s i ng w as confi dent i al and n o t f o r per s onal us e; and ( f) t hatheract i ons w er e unpr ofes s i onal , i n vi ol at i on of C i t ypol i cyand w er e pot ent i al l yhar m ful to b o th O f

f ic e r G o o c h a n d th e C ity.

A p p ell an t fi led a “ P eti ti o n fo r W ri t of C erti o rari” i n the S h elbyC o u n tyC h an ce ry C our t , see k ing a r evi ew of the C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on. A ppel l ant ’ s pet i t i on w as hear d on J une 11, 2009. T he chance r y cour t deni ed A ppel l ant ’ s pet i t i on, s peci fi cal l y fi ndi ng t hatt he C om m i s s i on had compl i ed w i t h t he U ni for m A dm i ni s t r at i ve Pr ocedur es A cti n conduct i ng it s d eli b era ti o n s in p ri v ate, an d that the C o m m issi o n ’s de cisi o n to u p h o ld A p p ell an t’ s ter m in a tio n A p p e llan t w a s s u p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial a n d m a ter ial e v id e n c e . A p p e llan t ti m e ly
a p p e a le d to th is C o u rt

.-4- II. I SSUES P RESENT ED

A p p ell an t asserts th a t the ch an ce ryco u rterred in u p h o lding the C o m m issi o n ’s deci s i on t o t er m i nat e A ppel l ant , beca us e the C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on w as err oneous fort he foll ow i ng reas on s:
1. Itw as a viol at i on of const i tuti on al provis i on s w hich prej ud i ced M s. R edm on ’s ri gh t s; 2. T he dec i s i on t o uphol d t he t er m i nat i on w as m ade upon unl aw ful pr ocedur e; 3. T he dec i s i on r es t ed upon no r eas onab le bas i s , w as arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous , and i ndi cat ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on; and 4

. T h e tr ial c o u rt f

a iled to in d ica te s u b sta n tial a n d m a ter ial e v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f its deci s i on.

III
. S T AN DA RD OF R EVIE W

I n 19 8 8 , the G ener al A s s embl yamended T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 27- 9- 1 1 4 (b )(1 ) to re a d , in p a rt, “J u d icia l re v iew o f d e c isio n s b y c iv il se rv ice b o a rd s o f a c o u n ty
orm uni ci pal i t yw hi ch af fec t s t he empl oym ents t atus of a c ount yorci t yci vi l s er vi ce em p loy ee sh all b e in c o n fo rm ityw ith the ju d ici al rev iew stan d ard s u n d er the U n ifo rm A dm i ni s t r at i ve Pr ocedur es A ct , § 4- 5- 322. ” S ee D a vis v. S h elby Co u n ty S h eriff’s D ep ’t , 278 S. W

. 3d 256, 262 ( T enn. 2009)

. “I n D a v is , t he Supr eme C our tcl ar i fi ed t he appl i cat i on o f T e n n
. C o d e A n n
. § 4 -5 -3 2 2 to C iv il S e rv ic e B o a rd s n o t g o v e rn e d b yT e n n . C o d e A n n . § 27- 9- 114( a) ( 1)

. ” Tennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 27- 9- 11 4 (a)( 1) pr ovi des t hat “[c ] ont es t ed ca s e hea r i ngs byci vi l s ervi ce boar ds of a c ountyorm uni ci pal i t yw hi ch af fec t t he empl oym ent s t atus of a ci vi l s ervi ce e m pl oy ee s hal l be conduc t ed i n conform i t yw i t h t he
c o n tes ted c a se p ro c e d u re s u n d e r th e U n if o rm A d m in istra tiv e P ro c e d u re s A c t, c o m p iled in t i t l e 4 , c h a p t e r 5 , p a r t 3

. ” Mo r r is v. Cit y o f Memp h is Civil Se rv. Co m m ’n , N o. W 2009- 00372- C O A

- R 3- C V , 2009 W L 4547688, at *3 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. D ec. 7, 2009) ( ci t i ng D a v is , 278 S. W

. 3d at263)

. B eca us e the C it y o f M emphi s i s a home r ul e j ur i s di ct i on, t he C i t yof M emphi s C i vi l Ser vi ce C om m i s s i on i s exempt ed fr om s ubdi vi s i on ( a) ( 1) ’ s r equi r ement t hat cont es t ed ca s e hea r i ngs aff ect i ng a ci vi l s ervi ce e m pl oy ee’ s empl oym ents t atus be conduc t ed in c o n f o rm ity w ith th e U A P A ’s c o n te s te d c a s e p ro c e d u re s
. See id. (c iti n g C ityo f M e m p h is O rd in a n c e N o . 1 8 5 2 ); see al so D a v is , 278 S. W

. 3d at263. “H ow ever , as not ed byt he Supr eme Court , w hen T enn. C ode A nn. § 27- 9- 114( a) and ( b) ar e r ead in p a ri m a ter ia , T enn. C o d e A n n
. § 2 7 -9-1 1 4 (a)(2) d o es n o t af fe ct th e ap p li ca b il ityo f th e jud ici al rev iew stan d ard t o t he C om m i s s i o n ’s d ec is i ons underT enn. C ode A nn. § 27- 9- 114( b)

. ” Mo rr is , 2 0 0 9 WL 4547688, at*3 ( ci t i ng D a v is , 278 S. W

. 3d at 263)

. T hus , ours t andar d of r evi ew i s t hats et f o rth in T e n n e ss e e C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 4 -5 -3 2 2 : ( h) T he courtm ayaff

i r m t he dec i s i on of the age ncyorr emand t he ca s e for-5-

f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s. T h e c o u rt m a yre v e rse o r m o d if yth e d e c isio n if

th e rig h ts of the peti t i on er have b een p rej ud i ced b ecause the adm i nis t rat i ve findings, i nfer ence s , concl us i ons ordeci s i ons ar e: (1 ) In v io latio n o f

c o n stitu tio n a l o r sta tu to ryp ro v isio n s; ( 2 ) I n e x c e s s o f

t h e s t a tu t o r y a u t h o r i t y o f t h e a g e n c y; ( 3) M ade upon unl aw ful pr ocedur e; (4 ) A rb itrar yo r c a p ric io u s o r c h a ra c ter ize d b ya b u se o f d is c re tio n o r c lea rly
unw arr ant ed exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on; or ( 5) ( A ) U ns uppor t ed byevi dence t hati s bot h s ubs t ant i al and m at er i al i n t he l i ghtof the ent i r e r ecor d. (B ) In d e ter m in in g th e su b sta n tialityo f e v id e n c e , the c o u rt sh a ll t a k e in to
ac co u n t w h atev er i n the reco rd fa ir ly d etracts fro m it s w eigh t, b u t th e c o u rt
s hal l not s ubs t i tut e i t s j udgm ent fort hatof the age ncyas t o t he w ei ght
o f th e e v id e n c e o n q u e stio n s o f f a c t.

O urr evi ew of the C om m i s s i on’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs i s l i m i t ed byt he pr ovi s i ons of Tennes s ee C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 4- 5- 322; how ever , ourr evi ew of m att er s of l aw i s de novo w i t hout
a p re s u m p tio n o f

c o rr e c tn e s s
. D a v is , 2 7 8 S

. W

. 3 d at 26 4 (cit ing T en n
. R

. A p p
. P

. 1 3 (d); C u m u lu s B ro a d ., In c . v. Sh im , 2 2 6 S

. W

. 3 d 3 6 6 , 3 7 3 (T en n
. 2 0 0 7 )).

I V. D I SC US SI ON

A
. O pen Meetings Act

O n a p p e a l, A p p e llan t cla im s th a t th e C o m m iss io n “ v io late d S tate law w h e n it del i ber at ed overPet i t i oner ’ s appea l i n pr i vat e. ” A s s uppor tfort hi s ar gum ent , A ppel l a n tc i t es th e T e n n e s s e e O p e n M e e tin g s A c t, T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o ta te d s e c t i o n 8 -4 -1 0 1 , e t s e q ., w hi ch r equi r es t hat “[a ] l l m eet i ngs of any governi ng body ar e decl ar ed t o be publ i c meet i ngs open t o t he publ i c atal l t i m es , exce ptas pr ovi ded by t he C ons t i tut i on of Tennes s ee. ” Tenn. C ode A nn. § 8- 4- 102( a)

. A s r el evantt o t hi s appea l , t he A ct defi nes a “gove r ni ng body ” as “[t ] he mem ber s of a publ i c body

. . . w i t h t he author it y to m ake de ci s i ons foror r ecomm endat i ons t o a publ i c bodyon pol i cyoradmi ni s t r at i on[. ] ” T enn. C ode A nn. § 8- 44- 1 0 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A)

.Tennessee Cod e Annotate d se ction 4- 5- 101, et s eq. 2
-6- A tor al ar gum entbefor e thi s C our t , A ppel l ant cont ended t hat w hen t he C om m i s s i on m ake s deci s i ons r egar di ng an empl oy ee’ s t erm i nat i on, t hati ti s m aki ng “dec i s i ons or re c o m m e n d a tio n s to a p u b lic b o d y o n . . . a d m in is tr a tio n ” a s c o n te m p la te d b yth e s ta tu te . W e di s agr ee. T hi s C our t , i n H as t i ngs v. South C entr alH um an R es our ce Agency , 829 S. W

. 2d 6 7 9 , 6 8 6 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 1 ), h e ld th a t th e S C H R A ’s g rie v a n c e c o m m itt e e w a s n o t a “governi ng body ” w i t hi n t he A ct ’ s pur vi ew beca us e i ts f u n cti o n w as m er el yt o “hea rand di s pos e of pe r s onnel compl ai nt s i n acc or dance w i t h t he pol i ci es and pr ocedur es for m ul at ed byt he governi ng boar d. ” A p p ell an thas fai l ed t o s how , oreven a r gue, t hatt he C i t yof M em phi s C i vi l Ser vi ce Com m i s s i on has author i t ybey ond t hatof the SC H R A ’ s gr i evanc e comm i t t ee. A ccor ding ly , itdoes notappea rt o t hi s C our tt hatt he C om m i s s i on s houl d be
v iew e d as a g o v ern ing b o d ysu b ject t o the A ct, an d thu s, w e f ind that the C o m m issi o n ’s deci s i on w as notm ade i n vi ol at i on t her eof.

A p p e llan t se e m s to a rg u e in th e a ltern a tiv e th a t th e C o m m is s io n ’ s p riv a te d e l i b e r a t i o n s v i o l a t e d t h e U n i f o r m A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e s A c t ( “ U A P A ” ) , s p e c i f i c a l l y, 2 T e n n e ss e e C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 4 -5 -3 1 2 (d ), w h ich re q u ire s h e a rin g s b e f o re th e C iv il S e rv ice C o m m iss io n re g a rd in g c o n tes ted c a se s “ b e o p e n to p u b lic o b se rv a tio n p u rsu a n t to t he pr ovi s i ons of [the Tennes s ee O pen M eet i ngs A ct ]

. ” Tenn. C ode A nn. § 4

- 5- 31 2( d)

. As
w e expl ai ned ab o v e, bec aus e the C i t yof M emphi s i s a home r ul e j ur i s di ct i on, t he C o m m issi o n is ex em p ted f rom T en n esse e C o d e A n n o ta te d sec ti o n 2 7 -9-1 1 4 (a)(1)’s
re q u ire m e n t th a t “c o n tes ted c a se h e a r in g s b yc iv il se rv ice b o a rd s . . . b e c o n d u c ted in conform i t yw i t h cont es t ed ca s e pr ocedur es undert he [U A PA

. . ] ” See T enn. C ode A nn. § 27- 9 -11 4 ; D a v is , 2 7 8 S .W .3 d a t 2 6 3 -6 4 . T h u s, w e f in d A p p e llan t’s a rg u m e n t w ith o u t m e rit.

B
. Suff

i ciency of

the E vidence

N ext , w e addr es s A ppel l ant ’ s ar gum ent s conce r ni ng t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence p re se n ted

. S p e c if

ica lly , A p p e llan t co n ten d s th a t th e C o m m iss io n “ re n d e re d a d e c isio n w ith
no r eas onabl e bas i s , t hatw as arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous , and th at in d icat ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on[, ] ” and that“the tr i al cour tfai l ed t o i ndi cat e any s ubs t ant i al and mat er i al evi dence
u p o n w h ic h th e c o m m is s io n re lie d to re a c h its d e c is io n in li g h t o f t h e e n tir e re c o rd .” A pp e l l a n t s u g g e s t s t h a t h e r t e r mi n a t i o n was “ c o mpl e t e l y u n r e a s o n a b l e ” b e c a u s e s he w as “veryni ce a nd pol i t e” w hen s he cal l ed O ffi cer G ooch, and beca us e hi s “di s comforts t emm ed notfr om s peci fi cal l yr ece i vi ng a ca l l fr om [A ppel l ant ] butt hati thappene d ata t i m e t hathe
w a s e x p e rie n c in g id e n tityth e f t.” S h e f u rth e r p o in ts to h e r “c lea n w o rk h isto ry ” w ith th e C ity and s he s ugges t s t hatut i l i zi ng O ffi cerG ooch’ s tel ep h o n e number w as nota “ve r ys er i ous-7-

br eac h of conf

i dent i al i t y
. ” A ppel l ant al l eges t hat t he C om m i s s i on err oneous l y as s um ed that O ffi cerG ooch’ s t el ephone numberw as confi dent i al

. She also claim s t hats he w as never p ro v id e d a n e m p lo y e e h a n d b o o k , th a t sh e n e v e r d iv u lg e d O f f ice r G o o c h ’s in f

o rm a tio n to any one, and thatO ffi cerG ooch’ s t el ephone number “w as on t he very s cr een s he w oul d s ee aft erl oggi ng i nt o herO r acl e dat abas e[. ] ” S he poi nt s outt hatno cr i m i nal char ges w er e fi l ed
a g a in st h e r, an d sh e f

u rth e r c o n ten d s th a t O f

f ice r G o o c h h a d re c e iv e d o th e r c a lls f ro m C ity empl oy ees and thathi s conce r n r egar di ng hert el ephone c al l s t emm ed onl yfr om hi s r ece nt i dent i t yt heft

. B as ed on thes e al l egat ion s, A ppel l antm ai nt ai ns t hathert erm i nat i on w as “exc es s i ve and unr eas onabl e. ”

“I n r evi ew i ng t he [Com m i s s i on’ s ] fi ndi ngs , w e t ake i nt o accou ntw hat everi n t he
r e c o r d f a i r l yd e t r a c t s f

r o m th e we i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e , b u twe ma yn o ts u b s t i tu t e o u ro wn j udgm enton ques t i ons of fa ctby re-w eigh ing the evi dence

. ” D a v is , 278 S. W

. 3d at265 ( ci t i ng T enn. C ode A nn. § 4- 5- 322( h) ( 5) ( B )

. “W e m ay r ej ect t he [Com m i s s i on’ s ] deci s i on onl yi f a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d nece s s ar i l y rea ch a di ffe r entconcl us i on bas ed on the evi dence

. ” I

d. ( ci t i ng Mart i n v. Siz em ore , 7 8 S

. W. 3 d 2 4 9 , 2 7 6 ( T e n n
. C t

. A p p
. 2 0 0 1 ) )

. We
w i l l not r ej ect t he C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on m er el y beca us e t he fa ct s coul d s uppor ta di ffe r ent
c o n c lu s io n
. I

d. ( ci t i ng Ma rtin , 7 8 S .W .3 d a t 2 7 6 ).

A pp el l ant’ s t erm i nati on w as based o n v i olat i on s of t he fo l l ow i ng provis i on s:

P M 38 -02(4) - “Th e em ploy ee’s con du ctan d /o r b ehav i or t ow ard ci t i zens, publ i c cha r ges , vendor s , contr act or s , m anage m ent per s onnel , fel l ow e m p lo y e e s, e tc., h a s b e e n o f f e n siv e , ina p p ro p ria te, a n d f a ils to m a in tain
s a tis f a c to ry a n d h a rm o n io u s w o rk in g re la tio n s h ip s .”

PM 38- 02( 11) - “The empl oy ee has m i s appr opr i at ed C i t y funds , appr opr i at ed C i t y pr oper t yforper s onal us e, i l l egal l ydi s pos ed of Ci t ypr oper t y , r emoved or d e s t r o ye d C i t y r e c o r d s , o rh a s t a k e n , b o r r o w e d , o r r e m o v e d C i t y p r o p e r t y, r egar dl es s of s i ze a nd/ orcos tfr om C i t ypr emi s es w i t houtpr oper a u th o ri z a tio n .”

PM 38- 02( 17) - “The em pl oy ee ha s ei t heron oroff the empl oy ee’ s r egul ar d u tyh o u rs en g ag ed in em p loy m en t, ac ti v it ies, o r en terprises tha t are i ncons i s t ent , i ncompat i bl e, ori n l egal , t echni cal , o r m or al confl i ctw i t h t he
e m p lo y e e ’s a s s ig n e d d u tie s , f u n c tio n s , a n d re s p o n s ib iliti e s .”-8-

PM 62- 12

- “C i t yempl oy ees
. . . s hal l adher e t o acc ept abl e bus i nes s pr i nci pl es i n m att ers o f per s onal conductand beha vi orand exhi bi ta hi gh degr ee of per s onal i nt egr i t y
. T hi s notonl yi nvol ves r es pectfort he r i ght s and fe el i ngs of otherC i t yem p l oy ees , butdemands thatC i t yempl oy ees r efr ai n fr om any c o n d u c t o r b e h a v io r th a t is c rim in a l o r illeg a l, or th a t m ig h t b e p e rso n a lly harm fu l t o co- w or ker s and C i t yof M emphi s G overnm ent , ort hatcoul d be
v iew ed u n fa v o rab lyb ythe p u b li c a t la rg e. T h ere fo re, C ityem p loy ee s are expec t ed t o behave in a pr ofes s i onal m annerbyconduct i ng t hemsel ves i n a w ayt hatbes tr epr es ent s C i t yG overnm entand t o exer ci s e appr opr i at e conduc t
a n d ju d g m e n t at a ll t im e s. . . . W il lf u l, d e lib e ra te, o r c a re les s m isu se o f C ity
e q u ip m e n t an d /o r C ity p ro p e rty sh a ll n o t b e to ler a ted

. S u c h a b u se w ill lea d to di s ci pl i naryact i on up t o and i ncl udi ng t erm i nat i on and/ or as s i gnm entof f in a n c ia l r e s p o n s ib ility f o r l o s s o r d a m a g e c a u s e d . . . .”

P M 7 8 -04 - “A ll ac ce ss to an d u se of p erso n al co m p u ter ha rdw are o r sof tw are ow ned byt he C i t y , i ncl udi ng i nt ernet , i nt ernal e- m ai l , and ext ernal e- m ai l , by anyC i t yempl oy ee .
. . w i l l be conduc t ed i n an ethi cal , pr ofes s i onal , and l aw ful
m anner , excl us i vel y forbus i nes s purpos es i n s uppor tof C i t yoper at i ons , and notforper s onal us e.
. . . U s er s w i l l not acc es s orus e thes e t ool s i n anym anner t hatbr eac hes confi dent i al i t yof C i t ybus i nes s , l egal , orot herpr op ri etary inf o rm ati o n [.]”

W e r ej ectA ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m t hatt he tr i al cour t“fa i l ed t o i ndi cat e anys ubs t ant i al and
m a ter ial e v id e n c e u p o n w h ich th e c o m m iss io n re lied to re a c h its d e c isio n [ .]” T h e trial c o u rt, i n fi ndi ng t hatthe C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on w as s uppor t ed by su b stant i al and mat er i al evi dence , s peci fi cal l yfound thatPM 78- 04 r equi r ed thatacc es s t o C i t y - ow ned com p u t er e q u ip m e n t b e u se d e x c lu siv e lyf o r b u s in e s s p u rp o se s, th a t A p p e llan t h a d n o leg iti m a te bus i nes s r eas on for acc es s i ng O ffi cer G ooch’ s confi dent i al i nfor m at i on t o i nqui r e abouther hus band’ s arr es t , and thati n doi ng s o A ppel l antvi ol at ed C i t ypol i cy
. W e agr ee w i t h t he tr i al
cour t ’ s s t at ement t hat“[w ] hether [A ppel l ant ’ s ] acc es s and subs equent us e of t he conf i dent i al i nfor m at i on w as inn o ce n t orw hetherO ffi cerG ooch w as conce r ned as a r es ul tof bei ng co n tacted b y[A p p ell an t] is i rreleva n t t o w h ethe r [A p p ell an t] v iolated th e C ity ’s po li cy [.]” W e furt herfi nd i r r el evantw hetherornotA ppel l antr evea l ed O ffi cerG ooch’ s t el ephone
num bert o a thi r d part y , w hethercr i m i nal char ges w er e br oughtagai ns t A ppel l ant , orw hether
s he had t o acc es s m ul t i pl e s cr eens w i t hi n t he O r acl e dat abas e i n or dert o l ocat e hi s t el ephone
n u m b e r.-9-

W e al s o r ej ectA ppel l ant ’ s cont ent i on t hat “the r ecor d fr om t he C om m i s s i on hear i ng i s r i fe w i t h fac t s i n evi dence s uppor t i ng th e re in sta tem e n t o f [ A p p e llan t].” A p p e llan t’s c laim t hats he neve rr ece i ved a ha ndbook cont ai ni ng the above- m ent i oned pol i ci es i s di r ect l yat
o d d s w ith th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted to th e C o m m iss io n . T h e re c o rd b e f o re u s c o n tain s a “ C ity of M emphi s N ew E m pl oy ee O r i ent at i on C heckl i s t , ” w hi ch A ppel l ant conce ded s he s i gned on J anuary10, 2006, acknow l edgi ng r ece i pt of num er ous pol i ci es and pr ocedur es , i ncl udi ng PM 62- 12 and PM 78- 04. A ddi t i o n all y , A ppel l antfai l ed t o s ubs t ant i at e hercl ai m t hat

“ O f f ice r G o o c h h a d re c e iv e d o th e r c a lls f ro m C itye m p lo y e e s . .
. th o u g h n o t sp e c if ica lly aboutarr es t s he had made. ”

A s w e s t at ed above, at t he C om m i s s i on hear i ng A ppel l ant t es t i fi ed thats he ac ces s ed th e C ity -o w n e d O ra c le d a tab a se to o b tain O f f ice r G o o c h ’s te lep h o n e n u m b e r fo r p e rso n a l,
r athert han w or k- r el at ed, r eas ons
. T he C om m i s s i on unani m ous l yconcl uded, and w e agr ee, th a t C itye m p lo y e e s h a v e a n e x p e c tatio n th a t th e ir c o n f id e n tial in f

o rm a tio n w ill b e u se d o n ly forbus i nes s purpos es , and “that the C it y m us tdemand se cur i t yand conf i dent i al i t yof
sen s i t i ve per s onnel i nfor m at i on and mustnotper m i tt hati nfor m at i on t o be us ed forany p e rs o n a l u s e , h o w e v e r h a rm le s s it m a y a p p e a r, w ith o u t ex p re s s p e rm is s io n o r a u th o ri z a tio n .” A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd t hatA ppel l ant ’ s t erm i nat i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al and mat er i al evi dence and thatt he C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on w as not“arbi t r aryorcapr i ci ous or char act er i zed byabus e of di s cr et i on orcl ear l yunw arr ant ed exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on. ” Tenn. C ode A nn. § 4- 5- 322( h) ( 4)

.

C
. D u e P rocess 1. H ear i ngs and V i ol at i ons C har ged

A ppel l antar gues t hats he w as deni ed due pr oces s pr i or t o her t erm i nat i on i n t hats he
w as i ni t i al l y t erm i nat ed w i t hout a “r equi s i t e fac t

- fi ndi ng hear i ng. ” She al s o cl ai m s t hatt he fac t

- fi ndi ng hear i ng fol l ow i n g h er r ei ns t at ementfai l ed t o compl yw i t h cons t i tut i onal requi rem ents becau se i tw as m erel yan att em pt t o “form al i ze” her term i nati on , and becau se s he w as deni ed the “r i ght ” t o “br i ng a w i t nes s ” t o t he hear i ng. Fi nal l y , s he cont ends t hather due pr oces s r i ght s w er e som ehow vi ol at ed becaus e the C i t y“cont i nued t o vaci l l at e on w hi ch pol i ci es s houl d be us ed i n s uppor t i ng [her ] t erm i nat i on. ”

T he Four t eenth A m en d m ent t o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on pr ohi bi t s s t at es fr om d ep ri v ing “a n yp erso n o f li fe , li b erty , o r p rop erty , w ith o u t d u e p roc ess o f law

. ” T h e h all m ark of pr oper t yi s an i ndi vi dual ent i t l ement gr ounded i n s t at e l aw , w hi ch ca nnotbe r emoved
exce pt“forcaus e. ” A rm strong v . T e n n . D ep'tof Veter an s A f f air s, 959 S. W

. 2d 595, 598-10-

( T enn. C t

. A pp. 1997) ( ci t i ng L o g a n v

. Z im m e r m a n B r u s h C o ., 4 5 5 U .S . 4 2 2 , 4 3 0 , 1 0 2 S . C t. 1148, 71 L

. E d. 2d 265 ( 1982) )

. A s t at e ci vi l s erv an t h as a pr oper t yi nt er es ti n hi s orher
c o n tin u e d e m p lo ym e n t. T enn. C ode A nn. § 8- 3- 331( a)

. T herefore, m i nim um du e process mu s tb e a f

f o r d e d t o s u c h e mp l o y e e s b e f o r e a c t i o n s a f

f e c t i n g t h e i r p r o p e r t yi n t e r e s tb e c o me eff ect i ve.

Pr i ort o t he t erm i nat i on of a publ i c empl oy ee w ho m aybe di s char ged onl y forcaus e, t h e e mp l o y e e mu s tb e g i v e n n o t i c e a n d a n o p p o r tu n i t y t o r e s p o n d t o t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s th i m. Cas e v. Shel

by Count y Ci vil Ser v. Mer it

B d. , 98 S. W

. 2d 167, 170 n. 1 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. 2002) ( ci t i ng C lev e la n d

B d . o f E du c . v. L o u d e rm ill , 470 U

. S. 532, 105 S. C t

. 1487, 84 L

. E d. 2d 494 (1 9 8 5 )); s ee al

s o T enn. C ode A nn. § 8- 30- 331. “[D ] ue proc es s i s fl exi bl e and c al l s fors uch p r ocedur al pr ot ect i ons as t he part i cul ars i tuat i on demands. ” I d. ( quot i ng Mat hew s v. E ldr i dge , 424 U

. S. 319, 334, 96 S. C t

. 893 ( 1976) )

. T ennes s ee C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 8- 30- 331( b) ( 5) s peci fi cal l y s t at es t hat t he “pr edec i s i on di s cus s i on
. . . s hal l be i nfor m al ” and t hat the e m p loy ee h as th e “ ri g h t to p rese n t w ri tt en stat em en ts of w itn esse s[;]” h o w ev er, “[a ] t t endanc e and pa r t i ci pat i on byper s ons ot her t han the managerand the empl oy ee s hal l be at t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e ma n a g e r [

. ] ” Be c a u s e t h e o p p o r tu n i t y t o c a l l wi t n es s es w as di s cr et i onaryr athert han mandat or y , A ppel l ant ’ s due proc es s r i ght s w er e not vi ol at ed byher
s uper vi s or ’ s deci s i on t o di s al l ow w i t nes s es att he A pr i l 14, 2008 fac t

- fi ndi ng hear i ng.

Furt herm or e, A ppel l ant ’ s due pr oces s ar gum ent s over l ook t he pos t

- t erm i nat i on p ro c e ss a f

f o rd e d to h e r. W h e n les s th a n a f u ll ev id e n tiary he a rin g is h e ld p rio r to te rm in a tio n , a f

o rm a l p o s t- te rm in a tio n h e a ri n g is re q u ir e d

. Case , 98 S. W

. 2d at 173 ( ci t i ng L o u d e rm ill , 470 U

. S

. at 547)

. T hi s C our thas s t at ed that“[t ] he pr et erm i nat i on and pos t t er m i nat i on pr ocedur es ar e i nt er t w ined and mustbe r evi ew ed t ogethert o det er m i ne w hether due proc es s has been s at i s fi ed. ” I d. ( ci t i ng C a rte r v . W

e ste rn R e se rv e P sy c h ia tric H ab i l i t ati on C tr. , 767 F. 2d 270, 273 ( 6 C i r
. 1985) )

. A ppel l ant ’ s t erm i nat i on w as r evi ew ed th byt he C om m i s s i on i n a ful l evi dent i aryhear i ng on Septem b er 5 , 2 008. A tt hi s hear i ng, A pp el l ant w as repr esent ed by cou nsel , she t est i fi ed on her beh al f, she w as al l ow ed to cr osse x a m in e O f

f ice r G o o c h a n d h e r su p e rv iso r, M s. G ib so n , a n d sh e h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto c a ll
w i t nesses on h er be h a lf a ltho ug h she ap parent l ycho se not t o sub po ena an yw i t nesses. E xami ni ng t he pr e- and pos t

- t erm i nat i on pr oced u res t ogether , w e have det erm i ned that A p p e lla n t w a s a f

f o rd e d th e re q u ir e d p ro c e d u ra l s a f e g u a rd s
.

W e al s o r ej ect A p pel l ant ’ s cl ai m t hatt he C i t y ’ s vaci l l at i on r egar di ng t he pol i ci es under w hi ch s he w as char ged s om ehow vi ol at ed her due pr oces s r i ght s
. In th e i ni t i al t er m i nat i on not i ce of

M ar ch 12, 2 0 0 8 , A ppel l antw as char ged w i t h vi ol at i ng PM 62- 12, E m p lo y e e C o n d u c t, an d P M 7 0 -0 5 , C o n f id e n tia lity o f M e d i c a l R e c o rd s
. H ow ever , on-11-

M a r c h 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 , App e l l a n t was r e i n s t a t e d , a n d s h e was c h a r g e d wi t h v i o l a t i ng t hr ee pr o v isi o n s: PM 38- 02, PM 78- 04, and PM 66- 12. A ppel l anthad s i x day s ’ not i ce of t he viol at i on s ch a rg e d p rior t o h er fact -fi nd i ng heari ng of M arch 24 , 20 08 , and i ti s for these th re e v io latio n s th a t A p p e ll a n t w a s u lti m a telyter m in a ted . A p p e llan t h a s f a iled to demonst r at e anypr ej udi ce s he s uffe r ed as a r es ul tof the C i t y ’ s act i ons
. A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd th a t th e C ity’s s u b s titu tio n o f c h a rg e s d id n o t v io la te A p p e lla n t’ s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts

. 2. V oid for V agu eness
Fi nal l y , on appea l A ppel l ant cl ai m s t hatt he thr ee pol i ci es upon w hi ch hert erm i nat i on w as bas ed ar e uncons t i tut i onal l y vague. T he C i t ycont ends t hatA ppel l antfai l ed t o r ai s e the “vague nes s ” ar gum enti n t he tr i al cour t

. H ow ever , ourr evi ew of t h e tr i al cour tt r ans cr i pt
re v e a ls th a t A p p e llan t b rie f lyra ise d th e iss u e re g a rd in g P M 3 8 -0 2 . N o n e th e les s, w e f in d it
unnece s s ary t o addr es s A ppel l ant ’ s ar gum ent r egar di ng PM 38- 02’ s al l eged “ vaguene s s ” as A ppel l antfai l ed t o chal l enge the tw o ot herpr ovisi o n s u n d erw hi ch A ppel l antw as t er m i nat ed, and a vi ol at i on of ei t her , al one, cons t i tut ed s uffi ci entgr ounds fort erm i nat i on.

V. C ONC L US I ON

For t he af

or ement i oned r eas ons , t he j udgm entof the tr i al cour tuphol di ng t he t er m i nat i on i s aff

i r m ed. C os t s of t hi s appea l ar e t axed t o A ppel l ant , J acque l i ne R edmon, and h e rs u r e t y, f

o rw h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s a r y.

_________________________________ A LA N E. H I G H ER S, P. J

. , W

. S.