602 S.W.3d 351
Tenn.2020Background
- Joshua Keller was hired as a Cleveland, TN firefighter in 2008; after a 2009 DUI conviction his probation was extended and he underwent counseling.
- In Jan. 2012 Keller, while intoxicated, fired a gun at a private gathering; he was charged and pled guilty to simple assault. The Fire Chief suspended him and recommended termination.
- The City terminated Keller (effective Feb. 17, 2012). Keller appealed under the City personnel manual: an administrative appeal to the City Manager followed by judicial review in chancery court.
- Keller filed suit claiming the personnel manual created a protected property interest entitling him to due process; he sought judicial review and damages. Federal court dismissed his federal due process claims; state court proceedings followed.
- The trial court and Court of Appeals held the personnel manual created a property interest (an appeal right) and that the appeal procedures were unlawfully applied; Court of Appeals awarded remand for damages.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review and reversed: it held the manual’s explicit disclaimers preserved at-will employment and thus no constitutionally protected property interest existed; remaining issues were pretermitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Keller) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the personnel manual created a constitutionally protected property interest in employment or in the appeal procedures | The manual (adopted by City Council) gave employees an unequivocal right to an administrative appeal and judicial review, creating a protectable entitlement | The manual contains explicit disclaimers that it is not an employment contract, that employees are employed for an indefinite term, and reserves unilateral modification rights | No. Manual disclaimers and reservation-of-rights language show no intent to be contractually bound; at-will status remains and no property interest exists |
| Whether the City’s appellate procedure (City Manager reviewing the termination) was unlawful | Keller: the review procedure was improper because the decisionmaker effectively affirmed her own prior recommendation, denying meaningful process | City: procedural issue irrelevant if no protected property interest; procedure followed manual provisions | Pretermitted. Court did not decide because Keller lacked a protected property interest |
| Whether damages are available under a common-law writ of certiorari for the alleged due process violation | Keller sought damages after certiorari review found procedure unlawful | City argued certiorari does not generally provide damages and remedy questions are moot without a property interest | Pretermitted. Court noted writ of certiorari historically does not award damages and did not reach the question |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenn. Dep’t of Corr. v. Pressley, 528 S.W.3d 506 (Tenn. 2017) (defining property-interest inquiry for procedural due process)
- Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Pub. Educ., 380 S.W.3d 715 (Tenn. 2012) (framework for procedural due process analysis)
- Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96 (Tenn. 2015) (articulating employment-at-will as Tennessee common law baseline)
- Rose v. Tipton County Pub. Works Dep’t, 953 S.W.2d 690 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (handbook becomes contract only with specific binding language)
- Huddleston v. City of Murfreesboro, 635 S.W.2d 694 (Tenn. 1982) (discussing review of municipal dismissals where charter/ordinance creates protections)
- Brown v. City of Niota, 214 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2000) (under Tennessee law, high standard to show intent to be bound by handbook)
- Reed v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, 4 S.W.3d 677 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (employee handbook may be part of contract only if binding language exists)