*1 uрhold question, then the court will batable validity of the annexation.
Applying foregoing test to the
facts in the instant it is evident Thus, question find debatable exists.
complainants’ third meritless. contention found, necessarily follows is affirmed. the Chancellor’s decree
DYER, CHATTIN, J., and Mc- C. FONES,
CANLESS, JJ., concur. MITCHELL, Appellant,
Carrie G. GARRETT, Superintendent Schools, County, al., Tennessеe, et Appellees. Tennessee.
April 15, 1974. Cornelius, White, Col- Hampton
Charles Nashville, White, lins, ap- Higgins & pellant. Turnbull, Turnbull, & Roberts A. John appellees.
Livingston, LEECH, Special M.W. Justice. by a brought tenure is an This Mitchell, seeking an or- teacher, G. Carrie position as restoring der of Instruction Sys- County School of the Pickett alleged demotion following an tem *2 895 Thereupon, plaintiff The in the “clаssroom teacher”. Chancellor filed suit Chancery County, to seeking found demotion and thus refused Court of Pickett grant requested Appeal supervisory was to be the order. reinstated her pur- thereupon brought monetary compensation direct and for to this Court 49-1417, provides resulting alleged her suant to T.C.A. demotion. On Court, 26, 1973, “appeal April where hearing the after all to the evi- transcript respect allegations the heard the dence with cause shall be on con- complaint, chancery original of the from the court.” tainеd the record Chan- the cellor stated: tran- The facts as ascertained from the script are as follow: my opinion, “It is and I if hold that the teachers’ tenure anything law means County System School con- Pickett all, . . this teacher not could plant sists physical of one which houses been have demoted and transferred and elementary both a high an and school. salary notice, reduced without approximately forty- these two schools are without a hearing, and without five the teachers. Since academic 1969-70 justification on рart the of the Board of year, Supervi- plaintiff the had served as I Education. in this hold case that Mrs. sor of Instruction Director Materials Mitchell wrongfully transferred and County for the System. Pickett School demoted and that she must be restored capacity, supervised this she work of the under the teachers’ po- tenure law to the forty-five the teachers the Pickett Coun- sition that prior she held to the time that ty System, School to ob- visited classrooms the Board replace undertook her.” methods, prepared serve teaching and evаl- projects uated Federal Aid to Education Subsequently, 30, May 1973, on the and distributed teachers materials which prepared Chancellor and filed his Memo- requested they had use their class- Opinion, randum setting findings forth his plaintiff rooms. The had an office the law, of fact and stating: conclusions “central the system. office” of school “I further hold the of the action September 1, defendant, 1972, On good motivated for the Garrett, Superintendent System, but same was moti- County System, School advised politics by by vated if not also malice plaintiff that she would be аssigned to a ill plaintiff. toward the feeling teaching position classroom kindergar- as a by Such the Board a amounted to ten in the elementary school for demotion both in sal- year. charges 1972-73 school Since no ary.” against plaintiff been had filed and as 14, 1973, classroom teaching represented May before On en- Court a plaintiff pay, Opinion substantial reduction in tered its Memorandum and before requested hearing entered, before the Pickett Decree Final County Board of Education. At hear- County this Board of Education met and trans- ing, September 26, 1972, held on plaintiff teaching the de- posi- ferred from her fendant, Maxie Garrett a kindergarten members tion teacher in the Pick- County County Elementary Board of ett School to the Pick- Education, admitted that were no ett for the outstanding charges agаinst As a result of the Board’s term 1973-74. 1973, and that action, 13, transfer from on filed June Supervisor of Chancery Instruction petition in the Court of Pickett kindergarten teaching seeking to a an set aside the County order to tion was within the perogative 1973 action of the Pickett Board of Eduсation. Board Education.
896
A reflecting Final Decree the action else the Court to come here had April prepared up in ac- the money, with one the other? cordance with the Court’s Memorandum sir, “A. had had Yes Opinion May entered split, had informed I been 11, 1973, provided until and it for an June year. not to this had have hadWe appeal defendants. *3 position split one for school 1972-73 July 18, 1973, hearing year. held
On was on I had been informed the State petition. time, plaintiff’s accept department At this that they would not May although defendаnts insisted that ’73-74. specify, letter did not so nor did therefore, “Q. Maxie, Now I believe County the minutes of Board all you meeting in the transfer voted to recite, of Education high Mitchell it Mrs. to school. Was Principal to serve Assistant of elected as your that time intention at to demotе her Also, the Pickett School. way, salary pay to that any salary that Maxie Garrett testified received Materials would have as she would receive as As- Teachers, Supervisor Director and Principal of the Pickett sistant position still ? had she had High be the same as she School would way. “A. In no she would have received been restored had posi- non-existing
to her former but now way “Q. In no what? tion as of Instruction and Ma- going to demote way “A. In no were we following terials Director. comply I to and wanted her. explain testimony given her еx- pay with the Court’s decision to 14th the Board: had she demanded actly what the Court “Q. why you Now Mr. Garrett did feel her in a paid; place be necessary like the ’73-74 discrimination where would year he school that she ? transferred teacher . other against explain that to thе Court. Just words, you placed if had “Q. In other Assembly “A. The 87th General position, oth- teaching some just in a September . last when I took of- be- might complained teacher have er fice, had, . . . the 87th General supple- they getting weren’t cause Assembly saying passed had new laws ? mеnt that she was supervisor, I one had one attendance. “A. Yes sir. Shore, telephone call who from Mr. Joel charge equalization, many just too And there’s “Q. positions those had turned both of Max, ask you tions, ... let me time; conversation, he half with some in the are there many positions how said, pay supervi- way in no will we County that system of school sor the Su- responsibilities have similar Direc- and Materials pervising Teacher receiving “Q. communica- Well after tor? Department Edu- tions from the State Director, we have understanding that “A. We your cаtion was it Supervi- full time Supervisor, one money for have you could not receive State Teacher, Attendance sor, full time one exact anyone who held the have position; Federal full time year? last one held Mrs. Mitchell elementary counselor; one guidance one “A. Yes. principal; school high principal; one principal, high assistant that, one you feel did “Q. And based made, .... that’s had to be some transfer it; “Q. every That’s now “transfer” inwas violation of positions express requirements these filled other last Code. year you’re talking ? That about. “Transfer” is defined T.C.A. 49- “A. sir.” 1401(7) Yes as follows: “ testimony plain- ‘Transfer’—removal from one heard Garrett, tiff jurisdiction and the another under plaintiff, a tenure the same Court concluded board.” twenty-seven having years service And the word “teacher” defined in T.C. System had “tеachers, A. 49-1401(1) to include not been demoted because: supervisors, principals, superintendents and all Principal personnel other employed” “The of Assistant certificated *4 by the the Pickett com- board. Having School is defined two essen- parable tial position Supervisor to the terms herein must of involved now turn to the the Code to ascertain whether System.” proper. transfer was addition, ordered, applicable The statute Chancellor ad- instant case to the judged 49-1411, is provides that: per- decreed T.C.A. in part tinеnt that: .by “. her transfer from superintendent, approval “The with Supervisor tion of and Materials Direc- board, of the when to the necessary effi- tor to that Principal of Assistant of the operation cient may system, County High School, plain- a transfer ‘teacher’ from loсation to dismissed,
tiff not suspended, has been another system, within the school or or demoted within the meaning of Sec- type from one of work to another for tion 49-1401 Tennessee An- Code qualified is which he and certificated notated 1973 action defendants, and that her transfеr position from Supervisor as and Ma- The foregoing applied statute was to a terials Director to the of Assist- case factually similar to instant Principal ant at High Wilson, State ex rel. Pemberton v. 481 S. School was a demotion within the Therein, plain W.2d 760 (Tenn.1972). meaning of the Tennеssee Teacher’s posi tiff had held the county supervisory Act, Tenure as she will receive the same period Teacher tion Attendance equivalent salary; accordingly, her years. seventeen was transferred She petition is merit without and should be that of clаss dismissed.” salary. room at a reduced How Assignments The of Error are: ever, position required twenty this latter days per year less work and she was The “1. Chancellor erred in finding required get far in order to to drive as concluding that the not de- held that the job. The her new Chancellor moted . Upon appeal “transfer” a demotion. 2. finding Court, transfer Chancellor erred in held that the to this concluding that proper within the discretion of board, was not position. entitled retain long superintendent and arbitrary or result of transfer was not the. capricious conduct. Although assignments two of error are made, one issue will in resolve at stated State v. the case this Court question bar. The 635 Yoakum, sole is whether the 297 S.W.2d 201 Tenn. 898 that the the ten- instant decision is direct con- teacher under
(1956), “[n]o continuity Butler, flict em- with 484 Gibson guaranteed ure law is S.W.2d (Tenn. 1972), рarticular assignment the instant decision ployment fails to the “alleged” consider that the fact school.” of Instruction and that Pem- opinion of It this is Materials Director was not abolished. The controlling in the Yoakum are berton and two aforementioned contentiоns are the Therefore, plaintiff had instant case. only matters petition. raised she was no tenure in the exact trans- properly and she could be holding mind, foregoing With the discretion. ferred the board’s should reiterated conclusion, only question reached providеs pertinent part Rule No. that: defend- remaining is not the whether or capri- arbitrary or ants’ herein was rehearing “A be refused will where no cious. made, argument and no new au- new adduced, thority fact material transcript in reviewing After is pointed out as overlooked.” cause, say we are unable to Applying appellant’s petition, said rule superintendent act board Gibson, fully supra, we find that dis- Moreover, arbitrary capricious. appellant’s original and thus cussed brief *5 presume actions of a board must that the argument no is and nо new now made new arbitrary superintendent are or ca authority is In now adduced. pricious, and unless but are reasonable fair Court did not overlook material fact contrary. is there clear evidence and the mere fact that this Court’s inter- Seej Mayo, 224 Tenn. g., e. Blair v. pretation ap- given of a fact differs from Herein, such (1970). no 450 S.W.2d pellant’s interpretation does not mean that exists, rather from the clear evidence but Moreover, something. overlooked transpired events which at the board meet case, is instant it from the total evident 14, 1973, ing May appears it that the held formerly record superintendent diligently tried and board appellant longer the time no existed at problem resulting the abo resolve from meeting 14th position in a lition of thus, appellant’s that the contention manner whiсh would make for the most ef Thus, tion is abolished erroneous. operation ficient pursuant authority of Rule 32 this Furthermore, System. having made petition should denied. transcript, an exhaustive search of the capricious arbitrary find acts on appellant, in Moreover, stаting that part. their Gibson, supra, is conflict with in results, therefore, petitioner’s It as- case, misconception stant shows basic signments of are overruled and the error holding instant our in both Gibson decree sustained. Chancellor’s Gibson, simply held case. particular facts that undеr those DYER, J., McCANLESS C. Claiborne Board of Education had FONES, JENKINS, JJ., Special Jus- arbitrarily capriciously acted in “trans tice, concur. ferring” certain tenured teachers therefore a demotion. said transfer was ON PETITION TO REHEAR however, find no the instant arbitrary capricious action in the LEECH, Special W. M. Justice. appellant Board’s Act of transferring super Mitchell, supervisory to another Appellant, has filed a G. Carrie found, visory position. Having petition to rehear wherein she contends appellant’s rights no demotion and un- der T.C.A. 49-1411were not violated. true, being necessarily aforesaid appellant’s
follows petition to rehear
is denied.
DYER, J., CHATTIN, C. Mc-
CANLESS, FONES, JJ., concur.
STATE of Tennessee on relation of Gloria Cummings Elizabeth WINFREY SUMMERS, Chancellor,
Paul and Joe R. Cocke, Clerk and of the Chan- Master cery Fayette County.
Supreme Court of Tennessee.
June 1974. *6 III, Gerber, Mem- Joseph Tagg,
Hal L. phis, petitioner. Wilder, Assoc., & S. Sr. Somer- John
ville, respondents. McCanless, justice. representing Eliza- The solicitors Gloriа Winfrey with the filed Cummings beth Clerk of Jackson to re- petition for the writ of mandamus sign Paul R. Summers quire Chancellor file a Cocke to and Master Clerk Joe Robert styled in a suit exceptions bill of complainant, v. Gloria Winfrey, Jr., Hill Winfrey, Cummings Elizabeth Fay- Chancery Court cause Clerk and the County. ette The Chancellor separate their answers Master filed