Steven Yen v. University of Tennessee Knoxville, M2016-00875-COA-R3-CV

Background

Dr. Steven Yen, a tenured University of Tennessee–Knoxville (UTK) professor, was terminated on Sept. 16, 2013 for making threatening statements to colleagues (e.g., talk of getting a gun or chopping people with an axe). UTK used its expedited termination procedure based on alleged credible threats.
Prior performance reviews (2011: "Needs Improvement"; 2012: "Meets Expectations") and interpersonal issues formed part of the workplace context; Yen had a history of suicidal and homicidal ideation and saw mental-health providers after coworkers reported his statements.
Yen received a Loudermill-style pre-termination meeting with notice of charges and ~30 minutes to respond; Chancellor Arrington terminated him that same day, citing safety concerns and the Faculty Handbook Code of Conduct.
Yen requested a TUAPA post-termination contested hearing. The hearing officer found Yen made credible threats, discounted Yen’s language/translation defenses and mental-health testimony as dispositive, and upheld the termination. The Initial Order later became the Final Order.
Yen sought judicial review in chancery court, which affirmed the hearing officer. Yen appealed to the Court of Appeals raising due-process, evidentiary/credibility, statutory-timing, and order-content challenges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court.

Issues

Issue	Yen's Argument	UTK's Argument	Held
1. Pre-termination due process	Pre-termination hearing was illusory; decision made beforehand and Yen was blindsided, so Loudermill rights violated	Pre-termination process complied with Loudermill: written/oral notice of charges, explanation of evidence, opportunity to respond (≈30 minutes); detailed post-termination TUAPA hearing available	Court: No violation — directory pre-termination check satisfied; full TUAPA hearing provided later
2. Weight of mental-health evidence	Mental-health professionals showed threats not credible; hearing officer erred by treating that evidence as non-dispositive	Hearing officer as factfinder may weigh or reject expert testimony; mental-health evidence did not compel different result	Court: Affirmed — trier of fact properly discounted experts; review limited to substantial-and-material-evidence standard
3. Credibility of threats / context	Statements were taken out of context, cultural/linguistic misunderstanding; not a "credible threat" meriting expedited procedure	Coworkers perceived real danger; history of ideation and contemporaneous reactions supported credibility; credibility only affected use of expedited process not ultimate misconduct finding	Court: Substantial and material evidence supports finding threats were credible; credibility question for factfinder
4. Delay in Initial Order (§ 4-5-314(g))	Hearing officer exceeded 90-day limit; delay was "unconscionable" and prejudiced Yen (employment prospects, etc.)	90-day rule is directory; no shown prejudice and decision was thorough, enabling review	Court: No reversible error — delay directory not jurisdictional; no prejudice shown
5. Initial Order omissions (§ 4-5-314(c))	Order did not include required statement about reconsideration/further review and timing; defect prejudiced Yen	Parties and Yen’s counsel received adequate notice elsewhere (appointment letter, emails) and Yen timely appealed; no prejudice	Court: No reversible error — procedural notice adequately provided; no prejudice to merits

Key Cases Cited

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (procedural due process requires notice, explanation of evidence, and opportunity to respond)
Duchesne v. Williams, 849 F.2d 1004 (6th Cir. 1988) (pre-deprivation hearing need not be a full evidentiary hearing)
Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Tenn. Dep’t of Labor & Workforce Dev., 402 S.W.3d 218 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (standard for judicial review of agency decisions under Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(h))
Davis v. Shelby Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 278 S.W.3d 256 (Tenn. 2009) (court will not reverse an agency decision simply because record could support a different conclusion)
England v. Burns Stone Co., 874 S.W.2d 32 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) (expert testimony is advisory and factfinder may assign weight or disregard)