### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A pr il 4, 200 6 S es sio n

ALEXANDER C. WELL S v . TENNESS EE BO ARD OF REGENTS , ET AL


### .

Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 95-2144-III Car ol McCoy, C hancellor

No. M2005- 00938-COA-R 3-CV - F iled on S eptem ber 27, 2006

P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J

. , d i s s en t i n g.

I t is e le me nta

ry that a statute wa ivi ng so ve re ig n immu nit y mus t c le arl y do so , a nda ny

statut e purporting to waive that immunity must be strictly construed. Courts are to de termine to what ext ent

a ndin w hat w a y s th e L e g isl a tur e ha s a llo we d s uit s a g a ins t th e Sta te

. Th e statut e a llo wi ng the su it he re in, Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 9- 8- 30 4, a uth orize s de novo judici al re v i ew of the termination or suspension of tenure d state university profe ssors. The statute doe s not mention or refe r to bac kpay

or the award of

da ma g e s. Th is c ou rt

c a nn ot i mpl y

su c h a re me dy or int e rp re t th e statut e so a s to enlar g e the waiver of sove reig n immunit y bey ond that intended by

the leg islature.

Mr. Wells base s his entitlement to backpay on Chapdelaine . The discussion in Chapdelaine of the a wa rdof ba c kp ay in l ig ht o f the so ve re ig n im mun ity of the State is v e ry

lim ite d. I t app e ars , howeve r, that the Court found a waiver of i mmunity in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49- 1417 as it exi sted at that time. This reliance is ex plained by lang uag e in then-e x isting Tenn. Code Ann . § 49-1421, quoted i n the Chapdelaine opinion, that stated that tenured c olleg e and unive rsity teac hers we re entitled to judicial review of boar d decisions “f o r t he same purposes a nd in the same manne r provided by § 49-1417.” Se e als o Eads v. Humphrie s , 562 S.W .2d 805, 806 (quoting the statute).

At t h a tt i m e , T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d § 4 9

- 1 4 1 7 w a s p ar to f t h e s t a t u t o r y

s c h e me applicable to tenure d teac hers in local school sy stems. Thus, at the time of the e mploy ment action at issue in Chapdelaine
, tenure d teac hers at colleg es g overne d by the State B oard of Education were entitled to a judicial revie w co-e x tensive in scope and reme dy with that available to tenur ed tea cher s in loc al elementa

ry and sec ondary

schools. The Chapdelaine court, finding that Tenn. Code Ann. § 4 9- 14 17 pr ov ide d ju ri sd ic tio n o f a c tio ns br ou g ht by te nu re d te a c he rs to r e vie w the ir dis mis sa l, noted that the Court had “ consistently approve d awa

rds of ba ck pay

as t o t ea ch er s i n the city and county school sy stems.” Chadelaine , 532 S.W .2d at 550.

I n 1976, howeve r, the Ge nera l Assembly sever ed the connection betwe en ac tions reg arding tenure d colleg e and unive rsity profe ssors in Boa

rd of Reg ents s chools from those r eg arding elementa ry and sec ondary

teac hers in loca l school s y s tems. 1976 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 839. That-2-

leg islation is now codified at Tenn. Code A nn. § 49-8-301, et seq . (de a lin g wi th te nu re fo r f a c ulty at i n s t i t u t i o n s wi t h i n t h e s t at e u n i v er s i t y an d co m m u n i t y

co l l ege s y s t em , go v er n ed b y t h e S t at e B o ard of Reg ents). Thus, the ba sis for the Chapdelaine c o u r t ’ s r e l i a n c e o n a u t h o r i t y g o v e r n i n g pu bli c
sc ho ol t e a c he rs in l oc a l sy ste ms n o lo ng e r e xists

.
The curre nt Boa

rd of Reg ents statutes provide f or de novo judicial revie w of the dismissal or suspension of a tenured faculty member. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-8-304. Thus, the court’s re view is lim ite d t o t he propriety of the B oard’ s decision to dismiss or suspend the te nured pr ofessor. Nothing in that statute, or the statute reg arding the Boa rd’s adoption of policies for “the termination of fa culty with tenure,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-8-301( a)( 3), or the statutes reg arding proce dures f or and re view of suc h actions, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 49-8-302 thr oug h - 304, authorizes the payment or

a w ar d o f b a c kp a y

. A n a c ti o n f o r ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f th e B o ar d ’ s d e c is io n d o e s n o t inc lude the

reme dies ava ilable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action or one broug ht under va rious st at e and fe dera l statutes prohibiting e mploy ment discrimination.

There is certa inly

an ar g ument that the Chapdelaine court did not rely exclusivelyon TennCode Ann. § 49-1417. The opinion includes lang uag e indicating that judicial revie w of a te rmination decision would be le ss than satisfac tory or ef fec tive if bac kpay

wer e not available. Of c ourse, a d e c i s i o n t h a tt h e B o ar d ’ s t e r m i n a t i o n d e c i s i o n m u s t b e o v e r t u r n e d b r i n g s o t h e r c o n c r e t e r e l i e f

. In

a ny e ve nt, the do c tr ine of

so ve re ig n im mun ity preclu de s f ull mon e tary

re lie f a g a ins t th e Sta te in many situations. Ex ceptions t o that doctrine must be e x plicit and have not g ener ally been ba sed on

conce pts of equity

or implication.

Whil e I understand the majority ’s adhe renc e to Chapdelaine , I would interpre t that opinion

a s r e ly ing prima

ri ly on a statut ory sc he me that ha s b e e n c ha ng e d, e ff e c tiv e ly e lim inatin g the ba sis for the ba ckpay

ruling . I t appea

rs to me that the prope r interpretation of Chapdelaine and the availability

of an a war d of bac kpay

ag ainst the State under a statute that is silent as to that remedy

are iss ue s th a t ne e d to be a dd re sse d b y the Te nn e sse e Sup re me Cou rt

.

___________________________________ PATRI CI A J . COTTRELL , J UDGE