Emory v. Memphis City Schools Board of Education
2017 Tenn. LEXIS 188
Tenn.2017Background
- Rogelynn Emory, a tenured teacher with a long disciplinary/medical history, was charged with inefficiency and given notice under the Teachers’ Tenure Act; she requested a board hearing in October 2005.
- The Board held a three-day hearing in November 2006; after hearing testimony and exhibits, the Board unanimously sustained dismissal and terminated Emory.
- Emory sought judicial review in chancery court alleging (inter alia) the Board failed to hold the hearing within the 30-day period required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-512(a)(2). She did not object to the delay before or during the Board hearing.
- The chancery court affirmed the Board, finding Emory received a full and fair hearing and that any delay did not prejudice her.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding the 30-day requirement directory (not mandatory) but awarding Emory back pay for the extra suspension days as a sanction for delay.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review, clarified the applicable standard of review, reversed the Court of Appeals’ back-pay remedy (no statutory basis), and held Emory forfeited the timeliness challenge by failing to raise it before the Board; it affirmed the chancery court’s judgment upholding termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 30-day scheduling requirement in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49‑5‑512(a)(2) is mandatory | Emory: statutory requirement is mandatory; failure divested Board of jurisdiction and requires reinstatement/back pay | Board: failure to hold hearing within 30 days caused no prejudice and statute supplies no remedy; substantial compliance/consent | Court: did not reach mandatory vs. directory; Emory waived the claim by not objecting before the Board, so timeliness issue not properly before court; termination affirmed |
| Whether Court of Appeals could award partial back pay for delay | Emory: sought reinstatement and full back pay; Court of Appeals awarded partial back pay | Board: Tenure Act contains no provision authorizing such a penalty; courts cannot rewrite statute | Court: reversed Court of Appeals—remedy has no basis in the Tenure Act; courts cannot supply penalties the legislature omitted |
| Standard of judicial review for tenure‑dismissal appeals | Emory: argued for statutory protections; parties disputed scope of review | Board: contended review limited to record; chancery court should not afford presumption to board findings | Court: clarifies Tenure Act requires de novo review on the board record in chancery court (no presumption of correctness); appellate review follows Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) for factual findings and de novo for legal questions |
| Whether additional evidence may be admitted in chancery review | Emory: sought to present extra evidence of delay and prejudice | Board: additional evidence inappropriate absent showing arbitrary/capricious action or statutory/constitutional violation | Court: additional evidence limited to establishing arbitrary/capricious action or statutory/constitutional violation; ordinary merits review confined to the board record |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Memphis City Sch. Bd. of Educ., 395 S.W.3d 616 (Tenn. 2012) (describing Tenure Act purposes and protections for teachers)
- Cooper v. Williamson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 746 S.W.2d 176 (Tenn. 1987) (distinguishing common-law and statutory writs of certiorari and scope of review)
- Ripley v. Anderson County Bd. of Educ., 293 S.W.3d 154 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (discussing chancery court de novo review on the record)
- Bailey v. Blount County Bd. of Educ., 303 S.W.3d 216 (Tenn. 2010) (holding failure to raise procedural objections at administrative level waives them on judicial review)
- McClellan v. Bd. of Regents, 921 S.W.2d 684 (Tenn. 1996) (administrative procedural objections must be raised at the agency to preserve review)
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (rules on when statutory "shall" is mandatory vs. directory; courts may not rewrite statutes)
- L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 344 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1952) (commentary on lack of prejudice where parties acquiesce to procedural irregularity and then seek reversal)