Terry Freeze v. City of Decherd, Tennessee
753 F.3d 661
6th Cir.2014Background
- Freeze and Colvin, Decherd police officers, alleged termination violated due process, open meetings act, and state law; district court held no property interest in continued employment.
- Police Chief Freeze and Colvin claimed a property right in continued employment established by the Police Resolution (2000) and related personnel policies.
- Board of Mayor and Aldermen controlled hiring/firing decisions; terminations occurred at a March 9, 2009 meeting without written notice or merits hearing; no grounds were stated at termination.
- Police Resolution contains mandatory “shall be for cause” discipline provisions and trumps conflicting resolutions; personnel policies labeled at-will do not defeat the contract language in the Police Resolution.
- Court reversed district court, holding the Police Resolution creates a property right in continued employment subject to termination only for just cause; remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Freeze and Colvin have a property interest in continued employment. | Police Resolution creates a binding contract. | Tennessee presumes at-will employment absent unequivocal language. | Yes; Police Resolution creates a property right. |
| Whether the Police Resolution’s “shall be for cause” wording binds termination for just cause. | Mandatory language demonstrates intent to bind. | Language applies to discipline, not necessarily all termination. | Yes; language binds termination for cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. City of Niota, 214 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2000) (high standard to prove contract-changing at-will status; permissive language insufficient)
- Reed v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 677 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (unequivocal language required to create a contract altering employment)
- Hooks v. Gibson, 842 S.W.2d 625 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (manuals can create contract terms governing termination where terms are clear)
- Rose v. Tipton Cnty. Pub. Works Dep’t, 953 S.W.2d 690 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (interpret handbook terms in context; binding terms require clear language)
- City of Niota, 214 F.3d 719 (6th Cir. 2000) (distinguishes termination rule from contract; not controlling here due to language differences)