ÿWPCØ …4Vj 0(y¡w@© 0lé 0DU 0J™ 0Tã 0^7 0h• 0rý 0|o 0†ë 0q 1u U,v 0d¢ UB %H U,N U6z B)° BÙ DCö AM9U*†-°’Ý D3ov~¢vÓ  0@ó AO3Æ‚ 0DH D/Œ B»à~| ÔøÔô3|xê($¡¡ ÖDרDÙDÚDÛÜDÝÞUßÓ€((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òApril€24,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ˆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔWhen€issues€not€raised€by€the€pleadings€are€tried€by€express€or€implied€à0 àconsent€of€the€parties,€they€shall€be€treated€in€all€respects€as€if€they€hadÏbeen€raised€in€the€pleadings.€€Such€amendment€of€the€pleadings€as€may€beÏnecessary€to€cause€them€to€conform€to€the€evidence€and€to€raise€these€issuesÏmay€be€made€upon€motion€of€any€party€at€any€time,€even€after€judgment;€butÏfailure€so€to€amend€does€not€affect€the€result€of€the€trial€of€these€issues.Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ý ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€‰XXdÈdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßL€&(%;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›€€€€à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OFÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌó óÌ̛̜ÌMARILYN€CHILDS,à àà àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9512„CH„00431Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à à)€ROANE€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€HON.€œWILLIAM€E.€LANTRIP,›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€CHANCELLORÌROANE€COUNTY€BOARD€OF€à àà à)ÌEDUCATION,€ET€AL.,à àà àà àœ)€AFFIRMED›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)€AND›Ìà àDefendants„Appellees.à àœ)€REMANDED›Ìà àÌÌÌÌÌDAVID€A.€STUART,€STUART€&€VAN€RIPER,€Clinton,€for€Plaintiff„Appellant.ÌÌROBERT€G.€WHEELER,€JR.,€and€CHARLES€W.€CAGLE,€LEWIS,€KING,ÏKRIEG,€WALDROP€&€CATRON,€Nashville,€and€J.€SCOTT€McCLUEN,ÏHarriman,€for€Defendants„Appellees.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌà@ àòòÌÓÓóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranks.€J.ÌÌÌò òà àà àó óThe€Roane€County€Board€of€Education€œ(Board)€dismissed›Íplaintiff€from€her€position€as€a€tenured€teacher,€and€sheÏbrought€this€action€claiming€œthe›€Board€violated€the€TeacherÏTenure€Act€œin€that›€the€Boardððs€decision€was€arbitrary€andÏcapricious€and€that€her€dismissal€did€not€œcomport€with›€œdue›Ïœprocess.›ÌÓ#` ¸ ‚XôLÐ ‚X#(#Óà àà àThe€Chancellor€determined€œthe›€evidence€supported€theÏBoardððs€findings€that€Plaintiff€had€committed€acts€whichÏdemonstrated€inefficiency,€incompetence,€neglect€of€duty,€andÏinsubordination.€€He€also€determined€that€the€hearings,€held€inÏthree€sessions,€satisfied€the€requirements€of€the€Teacher€TenureÏAct€and€met€due€process€standards.€€Ìà àà àPlaintiff€has€appealed,€insisting€the€Boardððs€decisionÏwas€arbitrary€and€capricious.€€œÌ›à àà àCourts€are€reluctant€to€substitute€their€judgment€forÏthat€of€a€school€board€where€œits›€exercise€of€judgment€does€notÏviolate€the€law.€òòState€ex€rel.€Thompson€v.€Walkeróó,€845€S.W.2dÏ752€(Tenn.App.€1992).€€œIt›€is€presumed€that€actions€of€œa›€boardÏare€not€arbitrary€and€capricious,€but€are€reasonable€unlessÏthere€is€clear€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€òòMitchell€v.€Garrettóó,Ï510€S.W.2d€894,€898€(Tenn.€1974).ò ò€ó ó€Ìà àà àThe€record€is€replete€with€testimony€that€plaintiffÏwas€unable€to€control€her€classroom,€maintained€questionableÏmethods€for€determining€studentsðð€grades,€and€requiredÏextraordinary€assistance€from€school€administrators€and€parentsÍto€enforce€discipline.€€Given€this€evidence,€the€Boardððs€findingÏthat€plaintiffððs€incompetence,€inefficiency,€insubordination,Ïand€neglect€of€duty€warranted€her€dismissal,€œwas›€not€arbitraryÏand€capricious.Ìà àà àFollowing€the€trial€before€the€Chancellor,€plaintiffÏsought€leave€œto€amend€her€pleadings€to›€œcharge€the›€violation€of€aÏpolicy€of€the€Roane€County€Board€of€Education,€which€requiredÏthe€School€Superintendent€to€provide€a€tenured€teacher€withÏadvanced€written€warning€prior€to€dismissal€from€employment.€ÏThe€Trial€Court€overruled€œthe›€motion€which€plaintiff€insists€wasÏerroneous.€€Plaintiff€argues€that€the€issue€of€notice€by€theÏsuperintendent,€as€required€by€county€policy,€was€tried€byÏimplied€consent,€and€the€Trial€Court€should€have€allowedÏamendment€of€the€complaint€to€include€this€œissue,€citingÏT.R.C.P.€15.02.× ƒ) ××  ×›€€Ìà àà àThe€Chancellor€stated€that€he€did€not€allow€theÏamendment€because€ð ðfurther€amendment€is€unnecessary.€€TheÏcomplaint€already€sets€forth€in€broad€terms€allegations€whichÏstate€a€cause€of€action€under€the€statute€governing€review.ð ð€TheÏlanguage€of€the€complaint€alleges€statutory€and€constitutionalÏviolations€generally€and€then€goes€on€to€specify€severalÍcharges.€€The€constitutional€violations€œalleged›€include€dueÏprocess€deprivations.€€Ìà àà àTrial€of€an€issue€by€implied€consent€will€be€foundÏwhen€a€party€opposed€to€the€motion€knew€or€should€reasonablyÏhave€known€of€the€evidence€relating€to€the€new€issue,€did€notÏobject€to€this€evidence,€and€was€not€prejudiced€thereby.ò ò€€òòó óZackÏCheek€Builders,€Inc.€V.€McLeodóó,€597€S.W.2d€888€(Tenn.€1980).€ÏHere€the€òòPolicies€of€the€Roane€County€Board€of€Educationóó€wasÏintroduced€into€evidence€during€the€trial.€€However,€it€wasÏintroduced€in€the€context€of€a€discussion€of€discrepancies€inÏAppellantððs€personnel€file€and€contract€provisions€setting€outÏgrievance€procedures.€€The€record€does€not€show€that€the€issueÏof€œa€lack€of€written€warning›€by€the€superintendent€was€raised€atÏany€time€in€the€œhearings.›€€Had€the€issue€been€clearly€raised€orÏeven€mentioned,€additional€testimony€might€have€been€elicitedÏfrom€the€superintendent€to€deal€with€this€issue.€€The€BoardÏcould€not€have€reasonably€known€that€the€policy€violation€wasÏbeing€raised€and€the€amendment€should€not€be€based€on€thoseÏgrounds.€òòSee€Lapray€v.€Smithóó,€804€S.W.2d€87€(Tenn.App.€1990).€ÏHowever,€the€Chancellorððs€finding€that€the€vaguely€wordedÏcomplaint€raising€due€process€issues€sufficed€to€raise€theÏviolation€of€the€Boardððs€policy€is€appropriate€under€theÏcircumstances€of€this€case.Ìà àà àPlaintiff€strenuously€insists€that€the€Boardððs€actionÍwas€a€denial€of€her€due€process€rights.€€The€œpolicy›€of€the€RoaneÏCounty€Board€of€Education€Art.€IV.ððC(16),€p.305,€1975,€requiresÏthat:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àAny€time€the€performance€of€an€employee€has€reachedÏthe€level€considered€unsatisfactory€and€which€couldÏlead€to€dismissal,€the€superintendent€shall€issue€aÏwritten€warning€to€the€employee€involved.€€AfterÏwarning€is€given,€the€employee€shall€be€given€aÏreasonable€time€to€improve€his€œ[sic]€performance.›ÌÌÓÓòò€€€€€€€€€€óóThe€Board€concedes€that€œsuch›€notice€was€not€given.€ÏThe€record€shows€that€the€only€written€notice€Appellant€receivedÏfrom€the€superintendent€of€schools€was€a€letter€dated€August€28,Ï1992,€informing€her€of€the€charges€to€be€considered€by€the€BoardÏof€Education€and€her€rights€under€the€dismissal€procedures€ofÏthe€Teacher€Tenure€law,€(T.C.A.€ðð€49„5„511).€€Ìà àà àThere€can€be€little€doubt€that€failure€to€followÏpolicy€can€be€a€due€process€violation.€€òòSee€Vitarelli€v.€Seatonóó,Ï359€U.S.€535,€79€S.Ct.€963,€3€L.Ed.2d€1012€(1959).€€1959).€Ï(Secretary€of€Interior€œwas€bound›€by€regulations€which€he€hadÏpromulgated€for€dismissals€on€grounds€of€security,€even€thoughÏhe€would€not€have€had€to€comply€with€such€guidelines€if€he€hadÏproceeded€against€the€employee€on€different€grounds).€€However,Ïit€is€important€to€note€that€òòVitarellióó€did€not€necessarilyÏrequire€strict€œadherence›€to€the€additional€dismissal€policy.€ÏThe€Court€found€that€the€dismissal€in€that€case€was€void€becauseÏthe€proceedings€fell€ð ðsubstantially€short€of€requirementsð ð.€òòÏVitarelli,óó€359€U.S.€At€544,€79€S.Ct.€At€975.€€The€Roane€CountyÍBoard€of€Education€was€bound€by€its€policy,€but€we€conclude€itÏsubstantially€complied€with€its€policy.Ìà àà àThe€actions€of€the€principal€substantially€served€theÏpurposes€behind€the€County€œpolicy,€by€repeated›€warnings€and€œtheÏamount›€of€time€œgiven€for›€œimprovement.›Ìà àà àPlaintiffððs€testimony€at€her€dismissal€hearing€andÏwritten€records€kept€by€the€principal€show€œthat›€early€in€theÏschool€year€plaintiff€was€made€aware€that€her€job€was€inÏœjeopardy.›€€She€testified€that€during€her€second€year€at€RockwoodÏJunior€High,€ð ðin€the€fall€Mr.€Thompson€began€telling€me€that€heÏcould€not€recommend€me€back€next€year€and€that€I€would€not€haveÏa€job€for€the€next€yearð ð.€€She€also€stated€ð ðMr.€Thompson€wasÏvery€upset€with€me€because€my€classroom€wasnððt€being€run€better,Ïand€he€let€me€know€that€on€a€daily€basis.ð ð€€The€record€showsÏthat€the€principal€gave€plaintiff€numerous€written€notices€ofÏunsatisfactory€performances€and€problems.€These€warnings€wereÏmade€over€a€period€of€œmonths,€and›€œraised›€numerous€concerns€aboutÏplaintiffððs€performance.€€We€conclude€these€warnings€wereÏsufficiently€numerous,€specific,€and€œserious€so›€as€to€œwarnÏplaintiff›€that€œshe€had€to€improve€her€performance€or€lose€herÏposition.€€These›€notices€were€given€months€before€the€end€of€theÏschool€year€and€œgave›€Appellant€ð ðreasonable€time€to€improve.ð ð€Ìà àà àœOur›€Supreme€Court€has€said€that€œcourts›€should€notÏinterfere€with€the€action€of€a€Board€of€Education€on€proceduralÍgrounds€except€in€ð ðthe€clearest€case€of€material€disregard€byÏthe€Board€of€the€procedural€requirements€of€the€statute€[theÏTeacher€Tenure€Act]€or€a€showing€of€prejudice.ð ð€€òòPotts€v.ÏGibsonóó,€469€S.W.2d€130€(Tenn.€1971).€€The€requirement€of€aÏshowing€of€prejudice€has€not€been€developed€further€by€ourÏcourts.€€However,€œthe€harmless›€error€œstandard›€comports€with€theÏreasoning€other€courts€have€employed€in€dealing€with€œdue›€processÏrequirements.€€òòSee€Gilbertson€v.€McAlisteróó,€383€F.Supp.€1107€(D.ÏConn.€1974ò ò)ó ó;€€òòWalker€v.€Board€of€Educationóó,€900€P.2dÏ850(Kan.App.€1995)òò;€€State€v.€Whiteóó,€785€P.2d€950€(Kan.1990).€ÏMoreover,€a€statutory€error€œmay€be›€harmless€if€it€does€notÏprejudice€the€substantive€rights€of€a€party.€€òòTamplin€v.€StarÏLumber€and€Supply€Co.óó,€836€P.2d€1102€(Kan.1992).Ìà àà àPlaintiffððs€testimony€shows€that€plaintiff€suffered€noÏprejudice€by€the€Countyððs€failure€to€follow€its€œrule€thatÏwritten›€notice€œbe›€issued€by€the€Superintendent.€€She€hadÏabundant€notice,€at€least€six€months€before€the€end€of€theÏschool€year,€that€her€work€was€not€satisfactory€and€that€theseÏproblems€œwould›€lead€to€her€dismissal.€€The€apparent€purpose€ofÏthe€County€policy,€to€convey€the€threat€of€dismissal€and€to€giveÏthe€teacher€reasonable€time€to€correct€the€situation,€wasÏœsatisfied›€by€the€principalððs€warnings.€€We€conclude€thatÏplaintiff€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€lack€of€notice€and€failureÏto€follow€the€mentioned€policy€constituted€harmless€error.Ìà àà àThe€plaintiff€charges€other€irregularities€in€theÏhearings€before€the€Board,€which€we€have€considered€and€find€toÏbe€without€merit.€Ìà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€theÏcause€remanded€with€the€cost€of€the€appeal€assessed€to€theÏappellant.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________Ìà àà àà àà àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌ