Opinion ID: 1619299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Introduction: Applicable Law

Text: The primary issue discussed by the parties in this appeal concerns the procedure that a school director must follow in dismissing a nontenured, nonlicensed teaching assistant employed on a one-year contract as a classified employee of the Blount County School System. Given some confusing language in the applicable statutes and what appears to be some confusion by the parties and amicus curiae in determining the correct procedure and applicable law, we deem it appropriate to identify first the statutory and regulatory scheme that applied to Bailey in this case.
As explained by Tennessee's Office of the Attorney General, Tennessee state education statutes divide local education employees into two major groups: certificated and non-certificated. Certificated employees (also referred to as licensed personnel) are those with a Tennessee teacher's professional license or certificate, and include teachers, principals, supervisors, and directors of schools. This group of employees is comprised of two subgroups: tenured and non-tenured. Non-certificated employees, in turn, comprise all other school employees such as food service workers, teaching assistants, custodial staff, etc. Op. Tenn. Att'y Gen. No. 07-117, 2007 WL 2819327, at  (Aug. 8, 2007) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). Joseph Bailey is a nontenured, noncertificated (nonlicensed) employee. Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-2-301(b)(1)(FF) (2009) provides in part that [a]ll persons who are employed in a position for which no teaching license is required shall be hired on a year-to-year contract. Additionally, section 49-2-301 authorizes each local board of education to employ a director of schools, id. at (a), and authorizes the director to employ, transfer, suspend, nonrenew and dismiss all personnel, licensed or otherwise, id. at (b)(1)(EE). Director Hord therefore had the statutory authority to both nonrenew Bailey's one-year contract and to dismiss him. A decision to nonrenew required only that Hord give Bailey fifteen (15) days' notice of nonrenewal of the contract before the end of the contract period. Id. at (b)(1)(FF). Director Hord's authority to dismiss Bailey during the contract term was limited, however, to Bailey's incompetence, inefficiency, insubordination, improper conduct or neglect of duty. Id. at (b)(1)(GG)(i). Under the statute, a school director may dismiss a nonlicensed employee like Bailey for cause  after [merely] giving the employee, in writing, due notice of the charge or charges and providing a hearing.  Id. (emphases added). Unlike its provisions for licensed employees, however, the statute does not specify the characteristics of the hearing to which a nonlicensed employee is entitled prior to his or her dismissal. By its structure, subdivision (GG)(i) clearly contemplates a difference between the pre-termination procedures afforded nonlicensed employees and those provided to licensed employees. The statute provides that a school director may dismiss any employee under the director's jurisdiction for incompetence, inefficiency, insubordination, improper conduct or neglect of duty, after giving the employee, in writing, due notice of the charge or charges and providing a hearing; provided, that no nontenured, licensed employee under the director's jurisdiction shall be dismissed without first having been given, in writing: (a) Notice of the charge or charges; (b) An opportunity for a full and complete hearing before an impartial hearing officer selected by the board; (c) An opportunity to be represented by counsel; (d) An opportunity to call and subpoena witnesses; (e) An opportunity to examine all witnesses; and (f) The right to require that all testimony be given under oath. Tenn.Code Ann. § 49-2-301(b)(1)(GG)(i) (emphases added). [9] Were we to construe the hearing required by the first clause (applicable to nonlicensed employees like Bailey) to encompass the same features as the full and complete hearing required by the second clause (applicable to licensed employees only), we would be ignoring the plain distinction made by the statute. [10] Moreover, such a construction would render mere surplusage the first hearing referred to. This Court has long recognized its duty to construe a statute so that no part will be inoperative, superfluous, void or insignificant. Tidwell v. Collins, 522 S.W.2d 674, 676 (Tenn.1975). In addition to the introductory language of (b)(1) (which directs boards of education to assign certain duties to their directors), another provision of section 301 directs that [a]ll actions of the directors or their designees shall be consistent with the existing board policies, rules, contracts and regulations[.] Tenn.Code Ann. § 49-2-301(b)(1)(HH). We therefore look next to the BCBOE policies to determine what authority has been granted specifically to the Blount County School Director in this situation and what rights have been given to the employee.
BCBOE Policy 5.202 is titled Suspension/Dismissal of Classified Employees. It is undisputed that Bailey was a classified employee of Heritage High School. Policy 5.202 was therefore applicable to him and is the authority that Dr. Morton and Director Hord referenced in their correspondence with Bailey. Policy 5.202 provides in full as follows: SUSPENSION A director of schools/designee may suspend an employee at any time when deemed necessary. Before an employee is suspended s/he shall be: (1) provided with reasons for the suspension; (2) given an opportunity to respond; and (3) given a written decision of the suspension. A director of schools may suspend an employee with or without pay. DISMISSAL The director of schools may dismiss any classified employee or non-tenured teacher during the contract year for incompetence, inefficiency, insubordination, improper conduct or neglect of duty. The director of schools may either choose to provide the employee with a hearing or give the employee the opportunity for a hearing before the Personnel Hearing Authority. Requests for hearings must be filed in writing within ten (10) days of notification. PERSONNEL HEARING AUTHORITY The director of schools will appoint a Personnel Hearing Officer to conduct such hearings. The Personnel Hearing Officer will hear the case and the employee shall have the right to: 1. be represented by counsel; 2. call and subpoena witnesses; 3. examine all witnesses; and 4. require that all testimony be given under oath. Factual findings and decisions in all dismissal cases shall be reduced to written form and delivered to the affected employee within ten (10) working days following the close of the hearing. The employee may appeal the decision to the Board within ten (10) working days of the Personnel Hearing Officer rendering the written decision to the employee. Written notice of appeal to the Board shall be given to the director of schools. Within twenty (20) days o[f] receipt of notice, the director shall prepare a copy of the proceedings, transcript, documentary and other evidence presented and provide the Board a copy of the same. The Board shall hear the appeal. No new evidence shall be introduced. The non-tenured teacher may appear in person or be represented by counsel and argue why the decision should be modified or reversed. The Board shall take one of the following actions: 1. sustain the decision; 2. send the record back if additional evidence i[s] necessary; or 3. revise the penalty or reverse the decision. Before any decision is made, a majority of the membership of the Board shall concur in sustaining the charges. The Board shall render a decision on the appeal within ten (10) working days after the conclusion of the hearing. The director of schools shall also have the right to appeal any adverse ruling by the Personnel Hearing Officer in same manner as the non-tenured teacher. Within twenty (20) days after receipt of notice of the decision of the Board, either party may appeal to the chancery court in the county where the school system is located. The Board shall provide the entire record of the hearing to the court. (Footnotes omitted, emphasis added). Our review of Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-2-301 and BCBOE Policy 5.202 makes clear that Bailey was not entitled by their provisions to the Full Hearing prior to his dismissal. The Court of Appeals therefore erred when it concluded that Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-2-301(b)(1)(GG)(i) required that Bailey be afforded the Full Hearing before being discharged. See Bailey v. Blount County Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3982911, at . Bailey's claim of due process deprivation has merit only if common law principles of due process jurisprudence render the 5.202 procedure inadequate.