Tennessee Department of Correction v. David Pressley
528 S.W.3d 506
| Tenn. | 2017Background
- David Pressley, a preferred-service correctional officer at Morgan County Correctional Complex, was terminated by TDOC after alleged misconduct (unauthorized removal/access of food); termination letter effective Jan 17, 2014.
- Pressley appealed under the TEAM Act: Step I (TDOC Commissioner) and Step II (Commissioner of Human Resources) both upheld termination; he appealed to the Board of Appeals (Step III).
- At the Board hearing, the ALJ preliminarily placed the ultimate burden of proof on TDOC; the Board found TDOC failed to prove most charges and reduced dismissal to a 14‑day suspension.
- Chancery court vacated the Board’s decision, ruling the ALJ erred in allocating the burden to TDOC; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding preferred‑service employees have a protected property interest and that the State bears the burden at Step III.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether preferred‑service employees have a protected property interest under the TEAM Act, and (2) who bears the ultimate burden of proof in a Step III appeal; it reversed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Pressley’s Argument | TDOC’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preferred‑service employees have a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment under the TEAM Act | TEAM Act’s “for cause” language and regulations create a legitimate entitlement to continued employment | TEAM Act allows dismissal either "for cause" or "for the good of the service," so no vested property right | No property interest; TEAM Act authorizes dismissal for the good of the service as well as for cause, so no constitutionally protected entitlement |
| Whether Due Process requires the State to bear ultimate burden at Step III because of a property interest | If a property interest exists, due process requires the State to prove termination at Step III | No property interest; burden follows UAPA/Uniform Rules allocation | Because no property interest, due process analysis not triggered; burden determined under UAPA/Uniform Rules |
| Allocation of ultimate burden of proof in a Step III (Board) de novo contested case under TEAM Act | Burden should be on State (Court of Appeals position) | Burden should be on employee as the party seeking to change the status quo (chancery court position) | Employee (Pressley) bears ultimate burden: petitioner/party seeking to change present state of affairs bears burden under Uniform Rules; here Pressley sought reinstatement |
| Effect of prior Civil Service Act and TEAM Act text/regulatory scheme on rights and burdens | TEAM Act should be read to preserve pre‑existing protections (property interest) | TEAM Act’s text and structure intentionally differ from prior law; its provisions remove the prior vested property right | TEAM Act’s different structure (including immediate effect of dismissal and separate good‑of‑service ground) shows legislature did not confer a property interest; UAPA rules govern burden allocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (recognition that property interests are defined by state law and procedures required before deprivation)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interests arise from state law, not the Constitution)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (hallmark of property is entitlement not removable except for cause)
- Rowe v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chattanooga, 938 S.W.2d 351 (Tenn. law on procedural due process analysis for employment interests)
- Bailey v. Blount Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 303 S.W.3d 216 (Tenn. law equating state "law of the land" clause with federal due process)
- Moore‑Pennoyer v. State, 515 S.W.3d 271 (discussion of at‑will employment principle in Tennessee)
- Davis v. Shelby Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t., 278 S.W.3d 256 (standard of review and administrative appeal context)