Thompson v. Memphis City Sch. Bd. of Educ.

Decision Date21 December 2012
Docket NumberNo. W2010–02631–SC–R11–CV.,W2010–02631–SC–R11–CV.
Citation395 S.W.3d 616
PartiesSaundra THOMPSON v. MEMPHIS CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

395 S.W.3d 616

Saundra THOMPSON
v.
MEMPHIS CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. W2010–02631–SC–R11–CV.

Supreme Court of Tennessee,
at Jackson.

Oct. 4, 2012 Session Heard at Nashville.
Dec. 21, 2012.


[395 S.W.3d 618]


Richard L. Colbert and Courtney L. Wilbert, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellant, Saundra Thompson.

Robert L.J. Spence, Jr., Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Memphis City Schools Board of Education.


OPINION
CORNELIA A. CLARK, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GARY R. WADE, C.J., JANICE M. HOLDER, WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., and SHARON G. LEE, JJ., joined.

CORNELIA A. CLARK, J.

We granted this appeal to determine whether a tenured teacher's failure to return from sick leave amounts to a constructive resignation or a forfeiture of tenure. We hold that, although a tenured teacher's failure to return from sick leave may constitute cause for termination, there is no statute authorizing a board of education to deem it a constructive resignation or a forfeiture of tenure. Accordingly, by dismissing the plaintiff tenured teacher without providing her with written charges or an opportunity for a hearing, the defendant board of education violated her rights under the Tennessee Teacher Tenure Act and her constitutional right to due process of law protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement, back pay consisting of her full salary, compensatory damages for the actual harm she sustained, and attorney's fees. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals, reinstate the judgment of the trial court, and remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this decision.

Factual and Procedural History

Saundra Thompson began working as a teacher for the Memphis City Schools Board of Education (“Board”) in February of 1987. After attaining permanent tenure, 1 Ms. Thompson requested and received sick leave for a portion of the 2004–2005 school year and for the entirety of the 2005–2006 school year. Ms. Thompson returned to work in August of 2006 and continued working without incident through October, at which time she requested and received sick leave until January 2, 2007.

However, Ms. Thompson did not return to work on January 2, 2007. The parties disagree on whether Ms. Thompson requested additional sick leave before or after failing to return to work on January 2, 2007. Ms. Thompson attached as an exhibit in support of her motion for partial summary judgment a letter from her physician, dated January 3, 2007, requesting an extension of her sick leave. Along with this letter, Ms. Thompson's attorney submitted an affidavit stating that the letter had been produced by the Board during discovery from the personnel file the Board maintained for Ms. Thompson. The Board has denied Ms. Thompson ever requested an extension of her sick leave.

[395 S.W.3d 619]

In any event, on April 11, 2007, Mr. Von W. Goodloe, a Labor Relations Administrator for the Board, wrote a letter to Ms. Thompson, stating as follows:

This letter is the result of the documentation received in the Division of Employee Relations. According to the documentation, you have not reported to work or contacted your Principal since January 2, 2007. Additionally, you have not applied for a leave of absence through the Division of Human Resources.

I find that discipline is warranted in this case. Therefore, on behalf of the Superintendent, your employment is hereby terminated effective January 2, 2007.

On April 23, 2007, a staff attorney for the Tennessee Education Association (“TEA”) wrote the Director of Schools for the Memphis City Schools on Ms. Thompson's behalf, advising that the termination violated several provisions of the Tennessee Teacher Tenure Act (“Tenure Act”), Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 49–5–501 to –515 (2002),2 including Ms. Thompson's right to receive written notice of the charges against her, id.§ 49–5–511(a)(4), her right to receive a document prepared by the Commissioner of the Department of Education summarizing her rights and recourse under the Tenure Act, id.§ 49–5–511(a)(5), and her right to receive a pre-termination hearing before the Board, id. § 49–5–512(a). To preserve Ms. Thompson's rights, the TEA staff attorney requested a hearing before the Board. The April 23, 2007 letter went unanswered, as did a similar June 4, 2007 letter from the TEA staff attorney reiterating Ms. Thompson's rights under the Tenure Act.

Having received no response to these letters, on September 28, 2007, Ms. Thompson filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Shelby County alleging that her dismissal violated both the Tenure Act and her right to due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. SeeU.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. For the alleged violation of her statutory rights, Ms. Thompson sought reinstatement, back pay, and an injunction preventing the Board “from bringing any of the charges [that were] contemplated in the April 11, 2007 letter against Ms. Thompson at any time in the future.” For the alleged constitutional violation, Ms. Thompson sought compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Ms. Thompson did not request a hearing before the Board.

In an answer filed December 21, 2007, the Board admitted that Ms. Thompson had acquired tenure as a teacher in the Memphis City Schools. The Board denied, however, that it had refused to schedule a hearing for Ms. Thompson and stated that it was “presently seeking to schedule a hearing.” The Board also denied violating Ms. Thompson's constitutional right to due process, but admitted that all of its actions regarding Ms. Thompson's employment were state action for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment and were taken under color of state law as that phrase is used in § 1983.

On April 23, 2009, Ms. Thompson moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts established that

[395 S.W.3d 620]

she had been dismissed in violation of both the Tenure Act and her constitutional right to due process. As support for her motion, Ms. Thompson relied on the October 18, 2008 depositions of Mr. Goodloe and Ms. Kimkea Harris, who, like Mr. Goodloe, worked as a Labor Relations Administrator for the Board in 2007.

The Board retained new counsel in late June of 2009, and Ms. Thompson agreed to delay a hearing on her motion for partial summary judgment to allow the Board's new lawyer to become familiar with the case. On July 31, 2009, the Board, through counsel, wrote Ms. Thompson stating that, while the Board believed she was not entitled to a hearing, the Board would be willing to schedule a hearing to accommodate her earlier requests.

On August 3, 2009, the Board moved to amend its answer to allege that Ms. Thompson's failure to return to work on January 2, 2007, amounted to a constructive resignation by which she abandoned, rescinded, or breached her employment contract and forfeited tenure. Ms. Thompson filed a response in opposition to the Board's motion, and on September 11, 2009, the trial court denied the Board's motion to amend, finding it futile and unduly prejudicial.

On August 18, 2009, the Superintendent of the Memphis City Schools sent Ms. Thompson written notice that charges of incompetence, inefficiency, and neglect of duty had been presented to the Board, and that these charges, if true, would warrant her dismissal under the Tenure Act. The charges were described in documents attached to the notice. In general, the charges were based on Ms. Thompson's failure to return from sick leave on January 2, 2007, her alleged inability on December 17, 2004, to manage her classroom, as well as her alleged ineffective instructional strategies, unprofessional behavior, and inappropriate communication skills on that date, and her alleged failure on October 29, 2004, to establish procedures and routines and to create an environment conducive to learning. The Board scheduled a hearing on these charges for September 22, 2009.

Ms. Thompson refused to participate in the hearing and applied to the trial court for a preliminary injunction to prevent it. Ms. Thompson argued that a hearing before the Board two years after her dismissal and the filing of her lawsuit was an inadequate remedy for the Board's violation of her statutory and constitutional rights. The Board opposed Ms. Thompson's request for injunctive relief, arguing that she had consistently requested a hearing before the Board since her dismissal.

At the conclusion of a September 23, 2009 hearing, the trial court orally granted Ms. Thompson's application for a preliminary injunction. In a subsequent October 26, 2009 order memorializing its decision, the trial court stated:

The Court finds that Ms. Thompson is not an employee of the [Board] and has not been an employee of the [Board] since her employment ended in 2007. The Court concludes that the procedures in Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 49–5–511 and 49–5–512 pertaining to the dismissal of a tenured teacher do not apply in the case of a teacher who is no longer an employee of the school system, and therefore concludes that the hearing sought to be enjoined would be contrary to law until such time as Ms. Thompson is reinstated as an employee of the [Board].

(Emphasis added.)


On the same day the trial court orally granted Ms. Thompson injunctive relief, the Board sent a letter purporting to reinstate Ms. Thompson but immediately suspend her without pay pending a November

[395 S.W.3d 621]

6, 2009 hearing on the charges described in the Superintendent's letter of August 18, 2009.

Ms. Thompson appeared at the hearing, but she argued that the purported reinstatement was ineffective. The hearing was suspended to allow the parties to seek clarification from the trial court as to the meaning of the term “reinstated” used in the trial court's October 26, 2009 order. On April 1, 2010, the Board asked the trial court to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Kucera v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • July 9, 2013
    ...statute is very specific. Plaintiff is entitled to full back pay at the rate of a teacher's salary.”). Thompson v. Memphis City Schs. Bd. of Educ., 395 S.W.3d 616, 629 (Tenn.2012). 95. Consequently, the Court finds that Vickie F. Forgety and David Kucera are entitled to their full salaries ......
  • Emory v. Memphis City Sch. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • March 28, 2017
    ...relief only if the teacher showed that she was damaged by the procedural violation. The trial court distinguished Thompson v. Memphis City Schools , 395 S.W.3d 616 (Tenn. 2012), on the basis that, in that case, the noncompliance with the Tenure Act was so extensive that it amounted to a vio......
  • Monce v. Marshall Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • April 2, 2018
    ...property interest in continued employment, and she cannot be deprived of this right without due process." Thompson v. Memphis City Sch. Bd. of Educ., 395 S.W.3d 616, 627 (Tenn. 2012). "Two of the essential requirements of due process are pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard......
  • Tenn. Dep't of Corr. v. Pressley
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • April 14, 2016
    ...432, 102 S.Ct. at 1155 (quoting Vitek, 445 U.S. at 491, 100 S.Ct. at 1263). The Tennessee Supreme Court in Thompson v. Memphis City Sch. Bd. of Educ., 395 S.W.3d 616 (Tenn. 2012), analyzed the minimum required by due process when a public employee "possesses a constitutionally protected pro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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