The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed a lower court's ruling that upheld the validity of an employment contract between Larry Kerr and Anderson County, declaring it unenforceable due to public policy concerns. The case stemmed from a contract signed on April 9, 1993, in which Kerr was to supervise educational programs for a $9,000 annual compensation, intended to run concurrently with his teaching contract with the Anderson County Board of Education. Kerr had initially declined a teaching offer due to lower pay but later accepted the part-time position with the County after being assured it would not conflict with his teaching role. He received payments under the contract from 1993 until 1998 when a change in county administration led to the decision not to honor the contract. The trial court had previously found Kerr did not breach the contract, but the appellate court concluded that the contract's provisions violated public policy, resulting in its dismissal. The appellate opinion was delivered by Judge Herschel Pickens Franks, with Judges Charles D. Susano, Jr. and D. Michael Swiney concurring.
The Contract in question was intended for a one-year term; however, the defendant contends that the County could terminate it at the end of this term due to funding issues. The Contract explicitly states it would remain in effect for the duration of the employee's employment with the Anderson County Board of Education, indicating it could only be terminated if the employee's position was terminated. This provision, which mandates ongoing funding as long as the employee is employed, is deemed contrary to state public policy since it requires indefinite funding without regard to the County’s financial situation or the necessity for continued services.
The excerpt references legal precedents, notably City of Knoxville v. Ambrister, highlighting that contracts that improperly influence official conduct undermine governmental integrity. The contract's terms were found to unduly bind the County’s legislative and executive bodies, thereby contravening public policy.
Regarding procedural matters, the defendant argued against the post-trial recusal of the County Attorney, who had testified during the trial. The Trial Court granted the recusal based on ethical rules (DR5-102), which mandate withdrawal if the attorney is to be called as a witness, unless certain exceptions apply. The County Attorney's testimony about the absence of approval for the Contract in the County Commission minutes was deemed cumulative since the County Clerk confirmed this absence. The Trial Court concluded there were adequate grounds for recusal but noted that the attorney's testimony did not pertain to contested issues, leading to the opinion that there was no valid reason for his removal from representing the County in the appeal.
Ultimately, the Trial Court's enforcement of the Contract is reversed, and the case is remanded for dismissal, with costs of the appeal assigned to Larry Kerr.
