Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Pub. Educ.
| Decision Date | 27 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. M2010–00237–SC–R11–CV.,M2010–00237–SC–R11–CV. |
| Citation | 380 S.W.3d 715 |
| Parties | Christian HEYNE et al. v. METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Philip N. Elbert, Jeffrey H. Gibson, and Meghan C. Dougherty, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Christian Heyne, William Heyne, and Robin Heyne.
Wm. Michael Safley, Deputy Director of Law; J. Brooks Fox and Christopher M. Lackey, Assistant Metropolitan Attorneys, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Education.
Richard L. Colbert and Courtney L. Wilbert, Franklin, Tennessee, for the Amicus
Curiae, Tennessee Education Association.
Randall G. Bennett and Joel H. Moseley, Jr., Nashville, Tennessee, for the Amicus Curiae, Tennessee School Boards Association.
Charles W. Cagle and Angela C. Sanders, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Amicus Curiae, Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents.
This appeal involves the scope of the procedural due process rights of a public high school student facing discipline for an infraction of school rules of conduct. After injuring a younger student with his automobile on school property, the student was cited for an infraction of the student conduct rule proscribing reckless endangerment. The principal's decision to suspend the student for ten days was upheld by a hearing board and a designee of the director of schools, and the school board declined to review the matter. Thereafter, the student and his family filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking judicial review of the disciplinary decision. Following a hearing during which the trial court permitted the student and his family to present evidence regarding allegedly arbitrary, capricious, and illegal conduct by school officials that was not reflected in the record of the disciplinary proceedings, the trial court found that the school officials had violated the student's procedural due process rights because one official had performed both prosecutorial and decision-making functions and because this official was biased against the student. The trial court also determined that the evidence did not support the conclusion that the student's conduct amounted to reckless endangerment. Accordingly, the trial court directed the school system to expunge the student's record and awarded the student and his family $371,845.25 in attorneys' fees and $25,626.27 in costs. The Board of Education appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgments. Heyne v. Metropolitan Nashville Bd. of Pub. Educ., No. M2010–00237–COA–R3–CV, 2011 WL 1744239 . We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
This dispute arises from an incident that occurred on Friday, September 5, 2008, at Hillsboro High School in Nashville. Following an afternoon film session for the varsity football team, several groups of players had assembled in a narrow parking lot behind the locker room to talk about their plans for the weekend and to wait for their rides home.
Christian Heyne, an eighteen-year-old senior and co-captain of the football team, was standing with one group of players when he overheard his name mentioned by another group of mostly freshman football players. Mr. Heyne believed that the freshman players were joking about him. Mr. Heyne got into his Lexus automobile, rolled down the windows, and turned on his music “a little bit.” Then he pulled up to another player's parked automobile. Following a brief conversation with the other player, Mr. Heyne put his automobile in reverse and backed up in preparation to leave the parking lot. The group of freshman players were standing between Mr. Heyne and the exit. Instead of coming to a complete stop after backing up, Mr. Heyne shifted directly from reverse to drive, causing his automobile to lurch forwardin the direction of the group of freshman football players.
The freshman players quickly scattered to get out of Mr. Heyne's way because two days earlier, Mr. Heyne had swerved his automobile toward two freshmen, forcing them to jump out of the way. All of the freshman players were able to get out of the way of Mr. Heyne's automobile except for Denzel A. 1 Mr. Heyne eventually brought his automobile to a stop, but not before the left front tire of his automobile pinned Denzel A.'s foot, causing Denzel A. to fall down.
Mr. Heyne backed up and stopped his automobile. He got out and approached Denzel A. to find out if he was hurt. Denzel A. was upset and, according to several bystanders, threatened Mr. Heyne. Mr. Heyne returned to his automobile and drove away, but in the process, he ran over Denzel A.'s backpack that had fallen under Mr. Heyne's automobile.
While at least one parent witnessed the incident, no coaches or other school officials were present. After Mr. Heyne drove away, Denzel A. and six other students found Roderick L. Manuel, Hillsboro High School's principal, in his office and described the incident to him. Mr. Manuel placed a telephone call to William Heyne, Mr. Heyne's father, but was told that he was out of town. When Mr. Manuel learned that Mr. Heyne's father was out of town, he discussed the incident with Robin Heyne, Mr. Heyne's mother.
Mr. Manuel also requested Denzel A.'s parents to come to the school. Denzel A.'s parents picked up their son at school and took him to the emergency room at Vanderbilt Children's Hospital. X-rays were taken, and the attending physician diagnosed Denzel A.'s injuries as a contusion and an ankle sprain. Denzel A.'s parents also notified the police about what had happened to their son. The police instructed them to consult with the school resource officer. Denzel A.'s parents returned to the school on Monday, September 8, 2008, to speak with the school resource officer about the incident.
Mr. Heyne was a high-profile student at Hillsboro High School, and his parents were very active in activities at the school. Mr. Manuel met with Mr. Heyne and his father on Monday, September 8, 2008. When Mr. Manuel asked Mr. Heyne to write down his version of the incident, Mr. Heyne's father handed Mr. Manuel a written statement that his son had already prepared. Mr. Heyne's father also provided Mr. Manuel with the written statements of two other students that Mr. Heyne's mother obtained following the incident. Mr. Manuel informed Mr. Heyne and his father that he would continue to investigate the incident and that he would contact them at a later date. He also instructed Mr. Heyne to refrain from bringing his automobile onto the campus. Mr. Heyne and his father agreed to this request.
On Tuesday, September 9, 2008, Mr. Manuel met again with Mr. Heyne's father and later in the afternoon with both of Mr. Heyne's parents. During the first meeting, Mr. Heyne's father suggested that his son was merely hazing the freshmen. Mr. Manuel told Mr. Heyne's parents that he was attempting to obtain a statement from a parent who had witnessed the incident. Mr. Manuel also suspended Mr. Heyne for two days pending further investigation.
Mr. Manuel continued to gather information about the incident. On September 11, 2008, after consulting with officials at the central office of the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (“MNPS”),2 Mr. Manuel determined that Mr. Heyne's conduct violated three provisions of the Student–Parent Code of Conduct and Handbook.3
Based on his investigation and his assessment of the seriousness of Mr. Heyne's infractions of the rules, Mr. Manuel finally decided that Mr. Heyne should receive a ten-day out-of-school suspension.4 However, because the Student–Parent Code of Conduct and Handbook required infractions of Rule 4, Code 44 to “be referred to a disciplinary coordinator and could lead to possible expulsion,” Mr. Manuel notified Mr. Heyne's parents by telephone and in writing that they had a right to request a hearing with regard to their son's disciplinary infractions and his punishment. Mr. Manuel's written notice to the Heynes stated that they could request a hearing regarding their son's decision by contacting Fran Perry, the Coordinator of Student Disciplinary Referrals assigned to Hillsboro High School.
Mr. Heyne's parents appealed Mr. Manuel's decision. A hearing was held on September 23, 2008, before a four-person hearing board.5 Ms. Perry convened and presided over the hearing. During this hearing, the attorneys retained by the Heynes presented a letter arguing their clients' case, along with 135 pages of witness statements, character references, and other documents. Mr. Heyne's father was also permitted to address the hearing board and to question Mr. Manuel.6 During this hearing, Mr. Heyne's father characterized the incident as “just a negligent accident that happened.”
At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing board, consistent with the Student–Parent Code of Conduct and Handbook, deliberated behind closed doors. Following their deliberations, Ms. Perry announced that she and the other board members had unanimously concluded that Mr. Heyne's conduct amounted to reckless endangerment in violation of Rule 1, Code 8 and that the ten-day suspension that Mr. Heyne had already served, coupled with probation for the remainder of the school year, was appropriate punishment for the infraction.
On September 24, 2008, Ms. Perry and the MNPS Director of Attendance and Discipline sent a letter to Mr. Heyne's parents informing them of the results of the hearing. This letter stated that the hearing board had found:
1. That Christian drove his vehicle into a crowd of 9th grade football players who were milling around on a school parking lot.
2. That all but one of the students scattered out of the path of the vehicle.
3. That one of Christian's wheels...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Carrington H.
...negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation.' " Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Pub. Educ., 380 S.W.3d 715, 732 (Tenn.2012)(quoting Cafeteria & Rest. Workers Union, Local 473 AFL–CIO v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 6 L.Ed.......
-
State v. Burgins
...regarding the deprivation of a right is scheduled to occur. AAA Bail Bonds, 993 S.W.2d at 86 ; see Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Pub. Educ., 380 S.W.3d 715, 732 (Tenn. 2012). A “meaningful manner” is one in which the contents of the notice are neither ambiguous nor obscure, but “clearly ......
-
Butler v. Tenn. Bd. of Nursing
...Co. v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 213 S.W.3d 898, 903 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Pub. Educ., 380 S.W.3d 715, 728 (Tenn. 2012); see also Stewart v. Schofield, 368 S.W.3d 457, 460 n.3 (Tenn. 2012) ("Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-8-101 c......
-
Howell v. Metro. Sexually Oriented Bus. Licensing Bd.
...that it is sufficient to withstand the deferential “any material evidence” standard applicable in this case. In Heyne v. Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Education, our Supreme Court defined the nature and quantum of evidence needed to uphold a board's decision under writ of certiorar......