Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Stephanie D. Hill v. City of Germantown, Tennessee Germantown Police Department Board of Mayor and Alderman of the City of Germantown, Tennessee
Citation: Not availableDocket: W2009-00308-COA-R3-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; March 31, 2010; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The case involves the termination of police officer Stephanie D. Hill from the Germantown Police Department following damage to her assigned police vehicle, which she initially reported as caused by an unknown driver. The incident occurred on January 19, 2007, when Hill discovered damage to her vehicle shortly after her housemate, Jamie Baker, left for school with her own vehicle. Hill suspected Baker might have caused the damage but did not disclose this suspicion when reporting the incident to her supervisor, Captain Lee Covey. After a tumultuous breakup with Baker, an internal investigation suggested Baker may indeed have been responsible for the damage. Hill was subsequently charged with neglect of duty and lack of truthfulness, leading to a municipal board hearing that resulted in her termination. The city administrator upheld this decision. Hill filed a petition for writ of certiorari to challenge the termination, which the trial court initially granted, ruling that the decision lacked material evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was material evidence supporting the termination. The judgment of the Chancery Court was therefore reversed, upholding Hill's termination. Capt. Covey instructed Hill to file a property accident report with the Jackson Police Department and an incident report with the City of Germantown regarding damage to her police unit. Hill reported the incident to Officer James Price, who documented that her vehicle was struck by an unknown driver while she attended a conference at the Double Tree hotel the previous day. The report noted damage to the rear bumper and stated that no suspect or vehicle was identified. Hill subsequently submitted an insurable loss report indicating her vehicle was damaged by an unknown driver. Later that day, Hill and Baker discussed the vehicle damage, with Hill questioning Baker about possibly causing it. Baker acknowledged the possibility but claimed her SUV's backup sensors did not activate. Hill also asked Baker's children if they remembered the incident, but they did not provide a response. Their relationship soured in mid-March 2007, leading to Baker threatening Hill about her job, alleging that she could report Hill for falsely reporting the accident. On March 13, 2007, after ending her relationship with Baker, Hill contacted her friend Captain Jodi Whitfield, informing him that Baker was responsible for the car damage and seeking advice. Whitfield recommended retracting her initial report to the Jackson Police and filing a new report with the Collierville Police. Although Hill planned to follow this advice, she did not take any corrective steps. On March 14, 2007, Baker contacted Capt. Covey, demanding the removal of Hill’s vehicle from her driveway. Hill called Covey twice that day, warning him that Baker might make false accusations against her and reporting that her police vehicle was missing, which contained a shotgun. Capt. Covey later sought the shotgun's serial number to report it stolen. Capt. Whitfield speculated that Baker may have had Hill’s vehicle towed, noting that Hill had previously reported damage to her take-home vehicle caused by Baker. After this information, Capt. Covey initiated an Internal Affairs investigation into the damage reported on January 19, 2007. Capt. Covey interviewed Baker, Hill, and Capt. Whitfield between March 29 and 30, 2007. During her interview, Baker admitted to scraping Hill’s vehicle while backing out, claiming she did not see it and that the damage was minimal, consisting of dirt and scuffs that could be buffed out. Baker stated she informed Hill about the incident on the same day it occurred, despite Hill's irate reaction about potential repercussions for her take-home vehicle. Baker denied threatening Hill regarding a false police report and indicated that their only subsequent discussion was light teasing from Hill and her neighbors about Baker's driving skills. Capt. Whitfield corroborated that Hill had identified Baker as the person who damaged her vehicle and advised her to take corrective action. Hill indicated she intended to do so but did not follow up with Capt. Whitfield afterward. Throughout the investigation, Hill provided three statements, initially claiming that scratches she observed on her vehicle were not new, as the frost on the car remained undisturbed. Hill documented damage to her take-home vehicle upon arriving at work and believed it may have occurred while she was in Jackson, noting pre-existing scratches that didn’t appear new. Upset about the situation, she filed a police report in Jackson, indicating uncertainty about where the damage occurred. During an inquiry by Capt. Covey regarding Baker's potential involvement, Hill stated that Baker had not disclosed any involvement until March, despite earlier discussions on January 19 about whether Baker had hit her vehicle. Hill expressed frustration that Baker delayed informing her, citing Baker's concern about upsetting her. Baker had previously damaged one of Hill’s vehicles, leading Hill to suspect her involvement again. During their discussions, Baker was evasive, suggesting she might have hit the vehicle without confirming it. Hill later questioned Baker's children about the incident; their responses varied, indicating uncertainty about whether Baker had hit Hill’s vehicle. Hill did not inspect Baker's vehicle for damage until after receiving a threatening call from Baker in March. Capt. Covey continued to question Hill to clarify the timeline and details of their discussions regarding the incident. On January 19, Hill called Baker after discovering damage to her vehicle and directly asked if Baker had hit her car, to which Baker did not respond. Hill clarified that she mentioned someone had hit her car but did not receive an admission from Baker. Baker later threatened to report to the police that she had caused the damage, marking the first time she acknowledged hitting Hill’s vehicle. Hill urged Baker to inform her if she had indeed caused the damage to enable rectification. In a conversation with Capt. Whitfield, Hill expressed uncertainty about whether Baker had hit her vehicle, noting she did not see damage on Baker’s SUV and suspected Baker was trying to create workplace issues for her. Capt. Whitfield advised Hill to amend her reports only if she found damage. Hill indicated she attempted to contact the Jackson Police Department to correct her report but could not recall the details of her communication and later suggested she may have only noted the call. Ultimately, Hill determined that no correction was necessary since she observed no damage on Baker's vehicle. She acknowledged that she should have followed Capt. Whitfield's advice. Throughout her statements, Hill maintained that she doubted Baker had actually hit her car and perceived Baker's claims as attempts to cause her distress. On March 30, 2007, Capt. Covey interviewed Baker's neighbors as part of the investigation. Nobles recalled a conversation with Hill and Baker regarding an incident where Baker allegedly hit Hill's take-home vehicle. Kristin Noble reported that Baker later confessed to backing into the car, although she did not inform Hill immediately. On March 30, 2007, Capt. Covey inspected both vehicles and noted damage to Baker’s SUV, contradicting Hill's account. Capt. Covey concluded that Hill provided inconsistent and false statements during the Internal Affairs Investigation. Following legal advice, Baker filed an accident report on April 4, 2007, admitting her SUV struck Hill's vehicle on January 19, 2007. On April 10, 2007, Hill was charged with violations of DR 108 (Truthfulness) and DR 120 (Neglect of Duty). The Truthfulness charge was based on Hill providing knowingly incorrect information during the Internal Affairs Investigation, inconsistent with physical evidence. The Neglect of Duty charge arose from Hill's failure to disclose her suspicion that Baker may have caused the damage when reporting to Capt. Covey and the Jackson Police Department. Capt. Covey drafted a Statement of Particulars outlining his findings, noting that Hill did not inform relevant authorities about Baker's potential involvement in the damage. During a review meeting, Hill attempted to clarify her earlier statements, acknowledging damage to Baker's SUV but claiming it was from an earlier incident. Capt. Covey found Hill's further explanations to be misleading. An administrative hearing on the charges occurred on July 12, 2007, where Hill was represented by counsel, allowed to call and cross-examine witnesses, and provided evidence including photographs of the vehicles. Capt. Covey testified about his investigation and findings during the hearing. Capt. Covey testified that Hill had a duty under Germantown Police Department policies to report any suspicion that her take-home vehicle had been damaged by someone, specifically if she believed Baker had hit it. Covey highlighted Hill's failure to submit corrected reports to both the Jackson and Germantown police departments as the basis for the neglect of duty charge. He suggested that while Hill may not have intended to file false reports, she was aware that Baker caused the damage. Despite acknowledging potential bias in Baker's testimony due to a personal breakup, Covey found Baker's account truthful and consistent with the physical evidence, contrasting with Hill's conflicting statements, which he deemed misleading and untruthful. This inconsistency constituted a violation of the Truthfulness provision of the department's rules. Baker testified at the hearing, confirming she hit Hill's vehicle and communicated this to Hill immediately after the accident. She mentioned a casual discussion about their driving skills following the incident and maintained the accuracy of a police report she filed in April claiming responsibility. Baker clarified her relationship with Hill, denying any domestic partnership or threats regarding Hill's job. Kristin and Brian Noble also provided testimony, recalling the damage to Hill's vehicle and affirming their previous statements to Covey. Hill recounted the day of the incident, noting minor scratches on her vehicle and a conversation with Baker, but could not clearly recall Baker's response regarding the damage. Hill reported damage to her vehicle to the Jackson and Germantown Police Departments and questioned Baker, who denied causing the damage. Baker claimed her car's sensors did not indicate a collision, and her children corroborated her statement. Hill was initially uncertain if the damage occurred in Jackson but later learned from Baker in March that she had caused the damage in January. Despite speaking with Capt. Whitfield, Hill did not amend her reports, maintaining her belief that Baker did not cause the damage. Lt. Angie Lewis testified at a Board hearing that she witnessed Baker being aggressive toward Hill during her move from Baker's residence, including threats to Hill's job. The Hearing Board found Hill guilty of Neglect of Duty and Truthfulness, recommending her dismissal, which was approved by Chief Hall. Hill appealed the decision, and an accident reconstructionist's assessment supported Baker's account of the incident. The City Administrator upheld Hill's termination based on the reconstructionist's report and extensive investigation documentation. Subsequently, Hill filed a petition for writ of certiorari in court, alleging that the City's actions were arbitrary and violated her due process rights. Hill contended her dismissal from the Germantown Police Department lacked substantiated evidence and was retaliatory, asserting that the actions against her stemmed from her prior EEOC complaint against the department. She claimed that the disciplinary measures were disproportionately severe compared to those imposed on male colleagues, thus violating her equal protection rights. In response, the City denied these allegations, emphasizing Hill's status as an at-will employee without a constitutionally protected interest in her job. The City maintained that the termination decision was founded on substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor illegal, submitting a full transcript of the administrative proceedings for judicial review. After a hearing on December 9, 2008, the trial court issued findings on February 4, 2009, which favored Hill. The court highlighted key testimonies, particularly Hill's uncertainty regarding the cause of damage to her police vehicle and threats made against her by Baker, who had a questionable credibility. The court established that for Hill to have violated departmental policies regarding truthfulness or neglect of duty, it would need to prove that she knowingly filed a false report. However, the court determined Baker’s testimony was unreliable, influenced by personal motives tied to their past romantic relationship, and concluded that it could not adequately support the charges against Hill. Baker’s neighbors, Brian and Kristen Nobles, provided testimony that contradicted Baker's account regarding their conversations and the nature of his relationship with Petitioner. Baker denied threatening Petitioner’s job, but this was directly contradicted by Lt. Lewis. The lack of credibility in Baker’s testimony was pivotal, leading to the conclusion that the case against Petitioner could not stand without credible evidence. The trial court criticized the accident reconstructionist's findings, which suggested that Baker's narrative was only “highly possible” rather than “probable.” To justify the termination of Hill, the trial court determined that there needed to be evidence showing Hill knew the damage was caused by Baker; however, it found Baker's testimony too unreliable for the City to reasonably rely on it. Consequently, the court ordered Hill's reinstatement with back pay and benefits. In its appeal, the City contends that the trial court incorrectly found insufficient material evidence to support Hill's termination and deemed the City’s action arbitrary and capricious. The appeal argues that the trial court improperly reassessed the evidence, evaluated credibility, and substituted its judgment for that of the lower tribunal, actions that are not allowed under the applicable standard of review. The appellate court will use the same standard as the trial court, which involves reviewing whether the municipal authority acted beyond its jurisdiction or in an illegal, arbitrary, or fraudulent manner. The court's review is confined to the evidence presented before the administrative tribunal, without reweighing the evidence or questioning the correctness of the tribunal’s decision. The case is reviewed under the common law writ of certiorari standard because Hill was an at-will employee, and the decision was not from a civil service board as defined under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. The appellate court's decision would remain unchanged under either standard. Tennessee Code Annotated § 4-5-322 (2005) mandates a review of the administrative tribunal's record to identify any material evidence supporting its actions. Substantial evidence is defined as relevant evidence that a reasonable mind could accept to support a rational conclusion. The administrative decision holds a presumption of validity, placing a heavy burden of proof on the challenger. If any justification exists for the decision, it must be upheld; if there is no supporting evidence, the decision is deemed arbitrary. In this case, the City contends that the trial court erred by requiring proof that Hill knowingly failed to disclose the cause of damage to her vehicle when she reported it. The City argues this misunderstanding led the trial court to improperly overturn the credibility assessment made by the administrative tribunal. The Germantown Police Department consistently mandated that officers disclose all relevant information regarding vehicle damage, and Hill was aware of this requirement. The court emphasizes that it must defer to the lower tribunal's interpretations of its own rules. Thus, the trial court's focus on whether Hill knew the damage was caused by Baker was misaligned with the appropriate standard. The evaluation of Hill's actions regarding the Neglect of Duty charge centers on her failure to disclose Baker's potential involvement when filing accident reports and her inaction in correcting those reports after Baker admitted responsibility. The trial court's decision regarding the actions of an officer with the Germantown Police Department was significantly influenced by its assessment of Baker's credibility. The court found Baker's testimony to be so unreliable that it could not support the charges against Hill. This conclusion was rooted in the principle that a reviewing court must give considerable weight to the credibility determinations made by the lower tribunal, particularly when it has witnessed the witnesses' testimonies firsthand. Evidence suggested that Baker had motives to provide false testimony due to her emotional state and vindictiveness towards Hill, especially following a tumultuous breakup. Capt. Covey, who was involved in the investigation, recognized Baker's bias and sought corroborating evidence to verify claims, which included physical evidence and statements from others, such as the Nobles. The Nobles’ statements indicated that Hill had prior knowledge of Baker’s potential involvement in damaging her vehicle. Capt. Covey also noted a disparity in the credibility of the testimonies, finding Baker's to be straightforward while Hill's was inconsistent. Hill's own admissions further supported the Neglect of Duty charge, as she acknowledged suspecting Baker of damaging her vehicle and later stated that Baker had indicated she might have done so. Instead of reporting this to the police, Hill relied on Baker's assertion regarding her vehicle's backup sensors. The court was required to defer to the Hearing Board's credibility assessment unless Baker's testimony contradicted clear facts in the record. Material evidence indicates that Hill was aware that Baker may have caused damage to her vehicle when she filed damage reports with the Jackson and Germantown Police Departments, yet she omitted this information. Despite Baker's admission of responsibility, Hill did not amend her reports or file a new report with the Collierville Police Department. Capt. Covey testified that Hill had a duty to provide accurate and complete reports and her failure to do so constituted a breach of duty, supporting the City’s finding of Neglect of Duty against her. The Truthfulness charge stemmed from conflicting statements Hill made during an Internal Affairs investigation. Initially, she denied asking Baker if she hit her vehicle but later contradicted herself, claiming multiple inquiries were made. Hill also provided inconsistent accounts regarding her communication with the Jackson Police Department, ultimately admitting she did not report the incident because she did not believe Baker was at fault. Her inconsistent statements necessitated repeated questioning, making it difficult to ascertain her version of events. The review of Hill’s petition confirms that sufficient material evidence exists to uphold the administrative findings against her for violating rules on Neglect of Duty and Truthfulness, justifying her termination. Consequently, the trial court’s decision granting relief to Hill is reversed, and her petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed, with costs on appeal assigned to Hill.