112 F. Supp. 3d 673
M.D. Tenn.2015Background
- Tennessee's First to the Top Act (2010) requires teacher evaluations to include value‑added assessments (VAA), typically TVAAS, and created TEAC and State Board authority to adopt evaluation policies (Policy 5.201).
- TVAAS produces individual teacher scores for tested-subject teachers and a school‑wide composite score reflecting performance on tested subjects; many teachers (fine arts, PE, languages, etc.) teach non‑tested subjects and lack individualized TVAAS data.
- State Board Policy 5.201 has, at times, required or permitted use of school‑wide TVAAS composites to evaluate teachers of non‑tested subjects (as a significant percentage of overall rating); a small set of alternative subject‑specific metrics was later approved for some non‑tested areas.
- Plaintiffs (two teachers and teacher associations) sued state officials and local boards, alleging facial and as‑applied Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection violations because non‑tested teachers are evaluated using school‑wide TVAAS scores unrelated to their taught subjects.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing plaintiffs fail Salerno facial‑challenge standards and that the policies satisfy rational‑basis review; Metro Nashville argued it lacked discretion and, separately, that it could not be sued under its charter.
- The district court granted dismissal with prejudice as to all defendants except Anderson County Schools Board of Education, holding Policy 5.201 and the Nashville policy survive rational‑basis review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policies facially or as‑applied violate Equal Protection (rational‑basis) | Policy 5.201 irrationally classifies teachers by tested vs non‑tested subjects and burdens non‑tested teachers by using unrelated school‑wide TVAAS scores | Policy 5.201 is rationally related to legitimate education goals (identifying/supporting instruction; incentives; crude proxy when individualized metrics unavailable) | Court: rational‑basis applies and policy is rationally related to legitimate objectives; equal protection claims fail |
| Whether the policies violate substantive Due Process | Using unrelated TVAAS data to deprive teachers of employment consequences is arbitrary and irrational | Due process requires only a rational relation to a legitimate goal; policymakers may act incrementally and rely on conceivable rationales | Court: same standard as equal protection; no substantive due process violation under rational‑basis review |
| Whether Metro Nashville Bd. of Pub. Educ. is liable under §1983 or immune as arm of State / not subject to suit | Plaintiffs treat MNBPE as a proper municipal defendant implementing the policy | MNBPE: compelled by State Policy/Act in many respects and Metro charter prevents it from being sued; where discretion exists it acted rationally | Court: MNBPE not suable under its charter (per Haines); claims construed against Metro Nashville; liability limited where district had no discretion; district‑level claims dismissed except re: Anderson County |
| Whether facial challenge meets Salerno standard and plaintiffs pleaded facts to negate all rational bases | Plaintiffs contend policy is fundamentally irrational and Salerno should permit facial relief | Defendants argue Salerno strict standard unmet and plaintiffs must negate all conceivable rational bases | Court: Plaintiffs did not meet Salerno; as‑applied and facial claims fail because policy survives rational‑basis review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (facial‑challenge standard) (upholding high bar for facial constitutional attacks)
- Midkiff v. Adams Cnty. Reg’l Water Dist., 409 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2005) (explaining equal protection/substantive due process: rational‑basis where no suspect class or fundamental right)
- Darks v. Cincinnati, 745 F.2d 1040 (6th Cir. 1984) (rational basis exists if classification bears some relevance to legislative purpose)
- F.C.C. v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (rational‑basis review gives policy a strong presumption of validity and courts may conceive any plausible rationale)
- DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) (describing the limited, deferential role of courts under rational‑basis review)
- Brotherton v. Cleveland, 173 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 1999) (municipalities acting as arms of the state are not separately liable under §1983)
- S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706 (Tenn. 2001) (state‑court authority on when a school board may sue or be sued)