John Timothy Enochs v. Dr. George Nerren, Superintendent of Dyersburg Schools, and The Dyersburg Board of Education

Citations: 949 S.W.2d 686; 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 813Docket: O2A01-9505-CH-00113

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; December 17, 1996; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

John Timothy Enochs, a tenured teacher in the Dyersburg City School System, was dismissed by the Dyersburg Board of Education following a hearing. Enochs' dismissal was based on charges of conduct unbecoming a teacher, specifically the improper touching of female students, which led to his conviction for aggravated sexual battery and sexual battery in 1988. After being suspended with pay in 1987, he was notified of the charges and his right to a hearing. At the hearing, only Superintendent Dr. George Nerren testified, presenting evidence of Enochs' convictions, while Enochs did not provide any testimony or evidence. The Board unanimously voted to dismiss him, citing his felony conviction as justification. Enochs subsequently filed a complaint in chancery court challenging his dismissal under Tennessee's Teacher Tenure Act, asserting violations of due process. The trial court affirmed the Board's decision. Enochs also appealed his criminal conviction, which was initially upheld but later reversed and remanded for a new trial by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1991. He has not been retried on the charges. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding his dismissal.

In 1994, following the resolution of Enochs' appeal regarding his criminal conviction, his lawsuit contesting his dismissal was heard in chancery court. The court allowed the Board to introduce evidence not presented during Enochs' pre-termination hearing, which corroborated the five charges against him. The chancery court issued a memorandum opinion, highlighting testimony from former students about improper touching and noting that Enochs provided no evidence to counter these allegations. The court concluded there was sufficient evidence for the Board to terminate Enochs' employment and dismissed his complaint. Enochs appealed, arguing that the trial court violated the Teacher Tenure Act by considering evidence regarding charges not presented at his pre-termination hearing and claimed the review should have been limited to the single charge of his criminal conviction. The court reviewed this issue de novo, with no presumption of correctness, as stipulated in Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(d). Both parties acknowledged that the hearing should be de novo, allowing the trial court to hear new evidence. However, Enochs contended that the Board's dismissal resolution only referenced the criminal conviction charge. The discussion also included the distinction between common law and statutory writs of certiorari, with the court clarifying that the de novo review under Tenn. Code Ann. 49-5-513(g) permits a broader examination, including depositions and oral testimony, beyond merely reviewing the school board's record.

A hearing de novo mandates that the Chancellor reassess both the facts and law based on all evidence presented, resembling an appeal from General Sessions Court rather than an appellate review under Rule 13, T.R.A.P., where no presumption of correctness is given to the lower court's judgment. In this context, the Chancellor's review under T.C.A. 49-5-513 requires a complete reassessment of all issues, effectively replacing the school board's judgment. Enochs contended that his dismissal was solely based on a reversed conviction for moral turpitude, arguing that evidence regarding other charges was improperly considered. However, the record confirmed that all six charges were presented at the pre-termination hearing, and Enochs did not provide exculpatory evidence for any charge. The trial court properly admitted evidence for all charges during the de novo hearing. Enochs claimed that this violated his due process rights; however, he had notice of all charges and the opportunity to defend against them. He also argued that he did not receive a sufficient explanation of the Board's evidence, but the record showed that the charges were specific. The ruling affirmed the trial court's decision, with costs assessed against Enochs.