Tenure Act
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Brown v. Shelby County Schools, No. W2022-00123-COA-R3-CV, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2023).
Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-5-513, a tenured teacher whose employment has been terminated by a school board is afforded the right to judicial review of the school board’s decision. Emory v. Memphis City Schs. Bd. of Educ., 514 S.W.3d 129, 139-40 (Tenn. 2017). In Emory, the Tennessee Supreme Court set forth the standard of review for the chancery court in a Teacher Tenure Act case as follows:
[T]he standard of review specified in the statute is intended to permit the chancery court to address the intrinsic correctness of the school board’s decision. The appellate court . . . aptly described this standard of review: The chancery court’s review, as contemplated by [section 49-5-513], is a de novo review wherein the chancery court does not attach a presumption of correctness to the school board’s findings of fact, nor is it confined to deciding whether the evidence preponderates in favor of the school board’s determination. The teacher does not have the ability to present new evidence on the merits of the charges; the chancery court’s de novo review is limited to the record of the school board proceedings. New evidence is only admissible to establish arbitrary or capricious action or violation of statutory or constitutional rights by the board.
Id. at 141-42 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). If the chancery court’s decision is appealed, this Court reviews the decision in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(d) “to determine whether the evidence preponderates in favor of the chancery court’s findings of fact.” Id. at 142 (citing Ripley v. Anderson Co. Bd. of Educ., 293 S.W.3d 154, 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008)). However, “[i]ssues of law, of course, are reviewed de novo, with no presumption of correctness in the chancery court’s conclusions.” Id. (citing Ripley, 293 S.W.3d at 156).
Whitley v. Metropolitan Nashville Board of Education, No. M2022-01079-COA-R3-CV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 22, 2023).
This appeal involves the Teachers’ Tenure Act (the “Tenure Act”). See generally Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-501, et. seq. As the Tennessee Supreme Court stated in Emory v. Memphis City Schools Board of Education,
it is apparent that the standard of review under the Tenure Act is not the standard applicable to a common law writ of certiorari. Instead, the standard of review specified in the statute is intended to permit the chancery court to address the intrinsic correctness of the school board’s decision. The appellate court in Ripley [v. Anderson Co. Bd. of Educ., 293 S.W.3d 154 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008)] aptly described this standard of review: “The chancery court’s review, as contemplated by [section 49-5-513], is a de novo review wherein the chancery court does not attach a presumption of correctness to the school board’s findings of fact, nor is it confined to deciding whether the evidence preponderates in favor of the school board’s determination.” The teacher does not have the ability to present new evidence on the merits of the charges; the chancery court’s de novo review is limited to the record of the school board proceedings.
Emory v. Memphis City Schools Bd. of Educ., 514 S.W.3d 129, 141-42 (Tenn. 2017) (internal citations omitted). The trial court is to review appeals under the Tenure Act pursuant to the standard of review as explained above in Emory. If an appeal is taken from the decision of the trial court to this Court, we review the trial court’s decision under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(d). The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed de novo with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Id. at 142; Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Issues of law are reviewed de novo, with no presumption of correctness given to the trial court’s conclusions. Id.
White v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. W2020-00278-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2022).
As the Tennessee Supreme Court stated in Emory v. Memphis City Schools Board of Education,
it is apparent that the standard of review under the Tenure Act is not the standard applicable to a common law writ of certiorari. Instead, the standard of review specified in the statute is intended to permit the chancery court to address the intrinsic correctness of the school board’s decision. The appellate court in Ripley [v. Anderson Co. Bd. of Educ., 293 S.W.3d 154 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008)] aptly described this standard of review: “The chancery court’s review, as contemplated by [section 49-5-513], is a de novo review wherein the chancery court does not attach a presumption of correctness to the school board’s findings of fact, nor is it confined to deciding whether the evidence preponderates in favor of the school board’s determination.” The teacher does not have the ability to present new evidence on the merits of the charges; the chancery court’s de novo review is limited to the record of the school board proceedings.
Emory v. Memphis City Schools Bd. of Educ., 514 S.W.3d 129, 141-42 (Tenn. 2017) (internal citations omitted). Thus, the chancery court is to review appeals under the Act pursuant to the standard of review as explained above in Emory. If an appeal is taken from the decision of the chancery court to this Court, we review the chancery court’s decision pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure13(d). The chancery court’s findings of fact are reviewed de novo with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Id. at 142; Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Issues of law are reviewed de novo, with no presumption of correctness given to the chancery court’s conclusions. Id.
