Tenn. Dep't of Corr. v. Pressley

Decision Date14 April 2016
Docket NumberNo. M2015-00902-COA-R3-CV,M2015-00902-COA-R3-CV
CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
PartiesTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION v. DAVID PRESSLEY

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County

No. 141380I

Claudia Bonnyman, Chancellor

Employee of the Tennessee Department of Correction filed an administrative appeal challenging the termination of his employment. The board of appeals reduced the termination to a fourteen-day suspension. On appeal to the trial court, the chancery court ruled that the burden of proof was improperly allocated to the Tennessee Department of Correction in the hearing before the board of appeals. We reverse the decision of the chancery court and conclude that the board of appeals properly allocated the burden to the Tennessee Department of Correction. We further conclude that no substantial and material evidence in the record exists to support the board of appeals' finding that the employee committed negligence in the performance of his duties. We also reverse the board of appeals' decision denying the employee's request for attorney's fees in the prosecution of his appeal to the board of appeals and remand to the board of appeals for a determination of those fees.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J.,W.S., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, and KENNY ARMSTRONG, JJ., joined.

Frank J. Scanlon and Samuel P. Helmbrecht, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, David Pressley.

Bryce Coatney, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Tennessee Department of Correction.

OPINION
Background

Respondent/Appellant David Pressley was employed by Petitioner/Appellee Tennessee Department of Correction ("TDOC" or "the State") since 2011 as a correctional officer at the Morgan County Correctional Complex ("the prison"). On January 8, 2014, Mr. Pressley received a letter from the prison warden informing him of his dismissal.1 The letter alleged that overnight on January 6-7, 2014, Mr. Pressley allowed inmates to pilfer food from the prison kitchen while he was supervising the cleaning of the prison kitchen and dining room, as shown by surveillance tape. In addition, the letter alleged that Mr. Pressley wrongly entered a secured food storage area and broke a tamper seal securing the area without filing an incident report.2 According to the warden, this behavior violated "Morgan County Correctional Complex Post Orders, For Post Assignment: Food Service/Dining Room - Security" ("Post Orders") and Department of Human Resources Rules pertaining to incompetence and negligence. Accordingly, the warden stated that Mr. Pressley's employment would be terminated effective January 17, 2014. The letter further indicated that as a preferred service employee, Mr. Pressley had the right to file a written complaint challenging his dismissal.

Pursuant to the Tennessee Excellence, Accountability, and Management Act of 2012 ("TEAM Act"), discussed in detail infra, Mr. Pressley initiated Step I review challenging his dismissal by filing a complaint with the Commissioner of TDOC. The complaint specifically alleged that "[t]he department did not have cause to take such action." By letter dated February 3, 2014, however, the Commissioner of TDOC upheld the termination of Mr. Pressley's employment. On or about February 12, 2014, Mr. Pressley filed a request for a Step II review. On March 10, 2014, the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources upheld the dismissal, finding no "violation by the Department [of Correction] due to your failure to demonstrate how the Department [of Correction] violated [Tennessee Code Annotated Section 8-30-316, the appeal procedures statute]."

Mr. Pressley then initiated a Step III appeal with the board of appeals, arguing that there was no cause for termination and that the punishment was too severe. In the course of the appeal, the Chief Administrative Law Judge filed an order indicating that the burden of proof would be assigned to TDOC pursuant to Tenn. R. & Regs. 1360-04-01-.02(3) & (7) of the Uniform Rules of Procedure for Hearing Contested Cases before Administrative Agencies. The letter indicated that if either party wished to contest the determination regarding the burden, it could do so by filing a written brief andmemorandum. TDOC filed a written brief and memorandum, arguing that the burden should be placed upon Mr. Pressley because he was the moving party. Mr. Pressley responded in opposition. An administrative law judge ("ALJ") ruled at a pre-hearing conference that the burden issue would be decided by the ALJ who was ultimately assigned to hear the case.

The case proceeded to a contested hearing on June 23 and August 8, 2015. During the hearing, the ALJ upheld the prior order assigning the burden of proof to TDOC. The State presented testimony from the prison warden, David Sexton; the prison internal affairs investigator, Lieutenant Shawn Phillips; and the prison food service manager, Anna Cannon, concerning the allegations against Mr. Pressley. In addition, the State relied upon surveillance video showing Mr. Pressley supervising the inmates while they removed food from the secure food storage area. According to the State's witnesses, Mr. Pressley allowed the four inmates that he was supervising to take as much as $5,000.00 worth of food from the prison's secure food storage area during the third shift on January 6, 2014. Mr. Pressley then allowed the inmates to cook the food and remove it from the kitchen and dining room area, taking the food back to their cells. Lieutenant Phillips testified that the purpose of the theft was to sell the food to other inmates. Lieutenant Phillips alluded to the fact that contraband was later found in the inmates' cells, but did not elaborate as to the identity of the inmates, specifically what was removed from the secure food storage area, when the searches of the inmates took place, or specifically what contraband was found in the inmates' cells.

Ms. Cannon testified that there should have been no need to enter the secure food storage area on the night of January 6, 2014 to obtain more food to feed third shift staff. According to Ms. Cannon, second shift food service staff actually prepared the meal for third shift, and the meal was left in heating boxes to be distributed at the appropriate time. In the unlikely event that more food was needed, however, Ms. Cannon testified that an officer or inmate would have been required to break a seal on the secure food storage area to gain entry. Indeed, Ms. Cannon stated that prison staff noted that no seal was on the food storage area on the morning of January 7, 2014.

Warden Sexton likewise testified that it was unlikely that third shift kitchen staff was required to prepare food for the third shift meal, as that preparation should have been done by the second shift food service staff. Warden Sexton also testified that Mr. Pressley filed no report concerning his entry into the secure food storage area or the necessity to break a seal to do so. According to Warden Sexton, the proper procedure when a correctional officer enters a secure food storage area to remove food, regardless of whether the correctional officer received permission for entry, "an incident report has to be made showing exactly what [is] remov[ed] from the area so that they can deduct that or adjust their inventory." To support this procedure, Warden Sexton cited the Post Orders, discussed in detail, infra.

The testimony of two correctional officers contradicted Lieutenant Phillips's testimony wherein he indicated that the inmates were allowed to take contraband food back to their cells overnight on January 6, 2014. According to these correctional officers, the inmates were thoroughly searched upon returning to their housing units and no contraband items of any kind were found. Both correctional officers testified that although they are on the video surveillance of the events at issue in this case and were on duty the night of the incident, no internal affairs investigators ever interviewed them regarding the night in question.

Mr. Pressley testified that he specifically called his supervisor Randy Human to obtain permission to enter the secure food service area to prepare the meal for the third shift. According to Mr. Pressley, the inmates he supervised were often required to assist in preparing the third shift meal. Mr. Pressley testified that upon relieving the second shift officer supervising the inmates, he first determined whether enough food was previously prepared to cover all the third shift meals. Because there was insufficient food already prepared, he opened the food secure area, which he testified was not sealed, and allowed the inmates to obtain enough food to prepare the third shift meals. According to Mr. Pressley, he was informed by Randy Human that he was only required to file an incident report if he was required to break a tamper seal. Neither party called Randy Human to testify.

Gary Murray, a retired captain from the prison with over three years' experience at the prison and over thirty years' experience in corrections, also testified for Mr. Pressley regarding the third shift meal. According to Captain Murray, more meals may have been needed on the night of January 7, 2014 because of inclement weather. Captain Murray explained that on evenings where snow and ice covers the prison grounds, more staff and/inmates are placed on third shift to clear the ice away for the morning. These additional workers would require meals. Captain Murray agreed that the normal policy was for the second shift food service staff to prepare the meal for third shift staff. Captain Murray testified, however, that he was aware of situations where not enough food was prepared and an officer is required to enter the secured food storage area to obtain more food to prepare, after receiving permission to do so from a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT