Dill v. City of Clarksville
511 S.W.3d 1
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Officer Dill, a City of Clarksville police officer, was terminated in August 2010 after a pre-termination meeting for alleged code violations and general orders infractions.
- The trial court found due process had been met but faulted the city for not following the disciplinary procedure in Code § 1-1316(f)(1)(b).
- This Court previously reversed, vacated the termination, and remanded for a determination whether the termination complied with Code § 1-1316(b).
- On remand, the City referred the matter to the HR Director for review; HR concluded termination was appropriate and generally consistent.
- The trial court adopted the HR review and held the termination not arbitrary or capricious, affirming the decision on common law certiorari review.
- Costs were taxed to Dill; the matter was remanded for enforcement of judgment and related proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand and required process | Dill argues remand demanded HR review and new evidence; hearing on remand was insufficient | City contends remand limited to HR review for due process check | Remand scope satisfied; HR review conducted and decision affirmed as proper under Code § 1-1316(b) |
| Compliance with Code § 1-1316(b) due process | Failure to forward to HR deprived Dill of due process | HR review met due process and ensured discipline was appropriate and generally consistent | Disciplinary procedure followed; due process satisfied on remand |
| Arbitrary or capricious nature of termination | Record lacked substantial basis for termination under standards | Record showed substantial evidence and progressive discipline justified termination | Termination not arbitrary or capricious |
| Back pay on remand | Entitlement to back pay remains unresolved on remand | Back pay outside scope of remand and writ | Back pay issues resolved by subsequent court orders; remaining issues unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Educ., 380 S.W.3d 715 (Tenn.2012) (limited scope of certiorari; due process standards for review)
- Demonbreun v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeal, 206 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn.Ct.App.2005) (scope of review; sufficiency of evidence; due process)
- Wills v. City of Memphis, 457 S.W.3d 30 (Tenn.Ct.App.2014) (review limits; no reweighing of evidence on certiorari)
- Lafferty v. City of Winchester, 46 S.W.3d 752 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) (evidence sufficiency standard; material evidence)
- Harding Acad. v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson Cnty., 222 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn.2007) (questions of law; de novo review)