Lemon v. Williamson Cnty. Sch.

• Decision Date: 07 January 2021
• Docket Number: No. M2018-01878-SC-R11-CV,M2018-01878-SC-R11-CV
• Citation: 618 S.W.3d 1
• Parties: Melanie LEMON v. WILLIAMSON COUNTY SCHOOLS et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

618 S.W.3d 1

Melanie LEMON

v.WILLIAMSON COUNTY SCHOOLS et al.

No. M2018-01878-SC-R11-CV

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

May 28, 2020 Session¹

FILED January 7, 2021

Lisa M. Carson, Franklin, Tennessee, for the Defendant/Appellant, Williamson County Schools,² and Defendants Kathryn Donnelly, Mike Looney, and Denise Goodwin.

Constance Mann, Franklin, Tennessee, for the Plaintiff/Appellee, Melanie Lemon.

Garrett Knisley and Benjamin Torres, Nashville, Tennessee, for Amicus Curiae Tennessee School Boards Association.

Holly Kirby, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Jeffrey S. Bivins, C.J., Cornelia A. Clark, Sharon G. Lee, and Roger A. Page, JJ., joined.

Holly Kirby, J.

We granted permission to appeal in this case to address whether a claim for wrongful termination of employment can be asserted under the Teacher Tenure Act, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 49-5-501 to -515, by classifying a tenured teacher's resignation as a constructive discharge rather than a voluntary quit. The plaintiff tenured teacher in this appeal quit her teaching position and sued for wrongful termination under the Tenure Act. We conclude that the doctrine of constructive discharge is inconsistent with the robust procedural framework in the Act, intended to give tenured teachers ample opportunity to be heard and ensure that dismissal decisions are made methodically, with transparency, and by consensus of professional educators. We reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision to apply the doctrine of constructive discharge to the plaintiff's claims, and we hold that constructive discharge is not applicable to wrongful termination claims under the Tenure Act. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of those claims. We also affirm the lower courts’ dismissal of the plaintiff teacher's tort claims against the school system and individual school officials.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Because this appeal requires us to review a trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss, we recite the facts as alleged in the complaint, presuming them to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Human., Inc. , 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011) (citing Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp. , 232 S.W.3d 28, 31 (Tenn. 2007) ).

Plaintiff/Appellee Melanie Lemon taught school for fourteen years. During the 2016–2017 school year, Ms. Lemon was a second-grade teacher at Walnut Grove Elementary School in Williamson County, Tennessee.

Ms. Lemon asserts that, despite the fact that she was a well-respected teacher with no history of discipline and excellent evaluations, school officials embarked on a campaign of harassment intended to coerce her into resigning from her teaching position. The harassment included false accusations that Ms. Lemon caused emotional distress to a parent and broke the law by providing student tee-shirt sizes for shirts purchased by a parent in support of a school-approved off-campus fundraiser.

After the tee-shirt incident, Ms. Lemon received unusually low evaluations, which she took as an indication that termination of her employment was imminent. Ms. Lemon reported her concerns to a union representative and to the assistant superintendent of the schools, but she did not get a satisfactory response.

Subsequently, school officials told Ms. Lemon she was under criminal investigation for child abuse. Initially, she was not told the specifics of the allegations. School officials conducted an incomplete investigation into the matter, and Ms. Lemon received a three-day suspension without pay, the maximum amount of time school officials may impose a suspension without triggering appeal rights.³ The child abuse allegations were ultimately deemed unfounded, and law enforcement declined to investigate.

When Ms. Lemon returned to the classroom following the three-day suspension, school officials placed cameras in her classroom to monitor her performance. They also assigned a retired teacher to her classroom as an observer. The superintendent of Williamson County Schools sent Ms. Lemon an email informing her that he was monitoring her actions in the classroom via the cameras. During this time period, school officials criticized Ms. Lemon for going into the hallway during class to speak with a school psychologist. Her time on the computer during class, responding to work-related emails, was timed. Ms. Lemon felt that none of these actions were warranted and were instead intended to pressure her to leave her employment.

After experiencing these events, Ms. Lemon felt she had no choice but to resign from her teaching position. She resigned on May 12, 2017.

On June 9, 2017, Ms. Lemon filed a complaint in the Williamson County Circuit Court. She named as defendants Williamson County Schools; the principal of Walnut Grove Elementary School, Kathryn Donnelly; the superintendent of Williamson County Schools, Mike Looney; and the assistant superintendent of Williamson County Schools, Denise Goodwin.

The primary claim in Ms. Lemon's complaint was for wrongful termination under the Teacher Tenure Act ("Tenure Act"), Tennessee Code Annotated sections 49-5-501 to -515, based on her allegation that she was constructively discharged. The complaint asserted other claims as well, including breach of contract, negligence, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, invasion of civil rights, and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ms. Lemon sought compensatory and punitive damages, including back pay, lost benefits, front pay, and compensation for her emotional distress.

In response, the Defendants filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss all claims. The trial court granted the motion in part; it dismissed Ms. Lemon's claims for wrongful termination, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of civil rights, and false light invasion of privacy, concluding that Ms. Lemon failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

With respect to Ms. Lemon's wrongful termination claims under the Tenure Act, the trial court outlined the pertinent facts, stated the legal standard, and concluded that the doctrine of constructive discharge could not be applied to claims under the Act:

Ms. Lemon contends she was wrongfully discharged when [Defendants] made her working conditions so difficult and unpleasant that she was forced to resign. In support, Ms. Lemon alleges [Defendants] falsified her observations and evaluations, giving Ms. Lemon unwarranted low scores; accused her of child abused [sic] based upon one parent's comment of an event that occurred [three] days earlier; told her it was illegal to tally t-shirt sizes of students; and reduced her to an inferior status by placing cameras in her room and assigning a retired teacher to monitor her classroom. Ms. Lemon submits the alleged conduct resulted in her constructive discharge; which Defendants achieved by subverting the process for dismissal set forth in the Teacher Tenure Act, Tenn[essee] Code Ann[otated] [sections] 49-5-501, et seq.

At this point, the Court must take all of Ms. Lemon's allegations as true, and then decide whether those facts can support a claim for relief. The Court concludes they do not. The [T]eacher Tenure Act was enacted to protect school teachers from arbitrary demotions and dismissals. However, in the present matter, Ms. Lemon was neither dismissed or discharged from her position as a second grade teacher at Walnut Grove Elementary School; but rather, as she admits, Ms. Lemon resigned before these actions could occur. Likewise, the Court notes Ms. Lemon was not transferred or demoted, nor did [Defendants] reduce her pay. It is not alleged that any of the Individual Defendants verbally suggested she should resign or discussed the possibility of her employment being terminated. Instead, the facts demonstrate, outside of the three day suspension, Ms. Lemon remained in the same teaching assignment until she resigned. Upon resignation, Ms. Lemon's status as a tenured teacher was terminated, thus removing her from the procedural protections provided by the Teacher Tenure Act for tenured teachers who have been improperly dismissed. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-501(11)(B)(i). Consequently, it cannot be said that Ms. Lemon was wrongfully discharged in violation of the Teacher Tenure Act.

Nevertheless, the Court acknowledges, under certain circumstances, some resignations may be coerced, thus enabling a court to grant a plaintiff relief for an involuntary resignation; however, the Court's legal research has not discovered, and Ms. Lemon has not cited, controlling law demonstrating the applicability of the doctrine of constructive discharge to the present factual circumstances. Therefore, as to Count 1, Ms. Lemon has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Ms. Lemon's claim for wrongful termination is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12.02(6). Tenn. R. Civ. P.

On this basis, the trial court dismissed Ms. Lemon's claim for wrongful termination under the Tenure Act.

The trial court dismissed Ms. Lemon's claims of breach of contract, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress without prejudice. It granted her leave to amend her complaint to assert those claims with greater specificity.

Ms. Lemon asked the trial court to reconsider; this request was denied. She then filed an amended complaint alleging breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive and compensatory damages.

After all of the Defendants answered the amended complaint, they filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment as to the remaining breach of contract claim because it was undisputed that Ms. Lemon voluntarily resigned. Moreover, it held, Ms. Lemon failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, and the policies the Defendants allegedly violated did not apply to the facts...