WPC\ # VUNa % 0(bw@4% 9 H 0P  0J 0T- 0^ 0h 0rG 0| 05 0 1uK U, 0d U,PU>| BB)DC AMCU* D3" 0@&v~fv AO 0D D/ B?HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($- - {E|E}U~DӀӀUDD BM L3|x(;(2&$ !  XV{XXX    0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman d% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-'C << G<  9p`(Arial%%%%'dxd  !  #d#$  ))   YYY FILED)XJuly31,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#$  ))   YYY FILED)XJuly31,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  ("$    PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &##Xd&###Xd#$      \RA'\ћ7V{XXdd7    HELENE.KING,    )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,   )      ) DavidsonCircuit       ) No.93C2150̜VS.      )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019511CV00529ٜL(+';+'h|MF`  `LߛMETROPOLITANGOVERNMENT )OFNASHVILLEANDDAVIDSON )COUNTY,TENNESSEE,   )      ) Defendant/Appellee.   )@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE@ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTY@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ HONORABLEHAMILTONGAYDEN,JUDGEDANR.ALEXANDER20168thAvenue,SouthNashville,Tennessee37204ATTORNEYFORPLAINTIFF/APPELLANTTHEDEPARTMENTOFLAWOFTHEMETROPOLITANGOVERNMENTOFNASHVILLEANDDAVIDSONCOUNTYJAMESL.MURPHY,IIIDirectorofLaw̜WM.MICHAELSAFLEY,MetropolitanAttorney204MetropolitanCourthouseNashville,Tennessee37201FORDEFENDANT/APPELLEEAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED      HENRYF.TODD      PRESIDINGJUDGE,MIDDLESECTION̜CONCUR:SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE̜SEPARATECONCURRINGOPINIONWILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGEHELENE.KING,    )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,   )      ) DavidsonCircuit       ) No.93C2150̜VS.      )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019511CV00529METROPOLITANGOVERNMENT )̜J(,;+'b|`  `@JߛOFNASHVILLEANDDAVIDSON )COUNTY,TENNESSEE,   )      ) Defendant/Appellee.   )̛̜@ OPINION Plaintiff,HelenE.King,hasappealedfromanunsatisfactorynonjuryjudgmentinhersuitagainstthecaptionedmunicipalityforwrongfuldischarge. Thecomplaintprayedforjudgmentfor backpayandbenefitsandreinstatement. ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtcontainsthefollowingfindings:8 8 (1)Plaintiffwasa14to15yearemployeewhowasgivenanimmediateseparationnoticeandwasanemployeeatwill;.... TheTrialCourtawardedplaintiffjudgmentfor$13,600,butdidnotorderreinstatement. Plaintiffpresentstwoissuesforreview,ofwhichthefirstis:8 8 1.Didthetrialcourterrinfindingthattheplaintiffwasanemployeeatwill? Thecomplaintstatesandtheansweradmits:8 8 8 3.PlaintiffwasemployedbythedefendantMetropolitanGovernmentonoraboutJanuary16,1978andwasassignedtoworkintheMayorsEmployment&TrainingResourcesAgency,(METRA)adivisionoftheMetropolitanGovernmentofNashville,DavidsonCounty,TennesseewheresheworkeduptothetimeofherterminationonOctober14,1992.... Thecomplaintasserts,andtheanswerdoesnotdeny,thatplaintiffsemploymentcontractwasExecutiveOrderNo.9102whichisexhibitedtothecomplaint.Itcontainsthefollowing:8 8 EmploymentpracticesoftheMetropolitanGovernmentshallbeadministeredinsuchmannerastocomplyfullywiththeCivilRightsActof1964asamended.Guidelinesondiscrimination,applicablelawsconcerningequalemploymentopportunity,andprovisionsforautilizationanalysisaresetoutandattachedasExhibit AtothisExecutiveOrderandareconsideredtobeapartofthisEqualEmploymentOpportunityPolicy. ExhibitAtotheforegoingquotationisnotincludedinthisrecord. Section12.08oftheCharterofdefendantstates:8 8 Sec.12.08Positionsinclassifiedserviceandinunclassifiedservice. (Footnoteomitted.)8 8 Allpositionsinthemetropolitangovernmentshallbeintheclassifiedserviceexceptthefollowing,whichareherebydeclaredtobeintheunclassifiedservice.8 0 8 (a)Allofficersofthemetropolitangovernmentandofthecountyelectedbypopularvote,andofficersappointedtofillvacanciesinanysuchelectiveposition.8 8 (b)Thedirectoroffinance,privatesecretariesofdirectorsasdesignatedherein,theadministrativeassistantstothemayor,themetropolitanattorney,thedeputymetropolitanattorney,theassistantmetropolitanattorneys,andemployeesintheofficeofthemayor,exclusiveofanysuchemployeeswhomayhaveotherwiseattainedacivilservicestatuspriortotheeffectivedateofthisCharter.... Thereisnoevidencethatplaintiffhad otherwiseattainedacivilservicestatus.Therefore,plaintiffsrightstocontinuedemploymentwerecontainedonlyinExecutiveOrderNo.9102andits ExhibitA,theCivilRightsGuidelines.NeitherbriefcitesordiscussestheCivilRightsActof1964asamended.  Plaintiffsbriefcitestestimonythatplaintiffwas protectedbytheCivilServiceRulesandRegulationsofthedefendant,whichwereincorporatedintotherulesandregulationsofMETRA(thedivisionofthemayorsofficeinwhichplaintiffwasemployed.) Thepowersofthemayorofamunicipalitydependwhollyonthecharterthereof.WeilϜRoth&Co.v.TownofNewbern,126Tenn.223,148S.W.680,LRA1915A1009,Ann.ϜCas.1913E.25. Amunicipalofficerhasonlysuchpowersasareexpresslyorimpliedlyconferreduponhimbyconstitutional,statutorycharterprovisions,ordinancesorotherprovisions.62C.J.S.MunicipalCorporations62,pp.54142. Certainly,asubordinateofamayorhasnopowerbytestimonytosupersedeprovisionsoftheCharteroftheCity.  Therecordcontainsnocompetentevidencethatplaintiffsemploymentwassubjecttoanycivilserviceregulation,andtheonlylimitationshownuponthepowerofdischargeisthereferencetothe CivilRightsActinExecutiveOrder9102,quotedabove. Asalreadyindicated,theTrialJudgefoundthatplaintiffwasanemployeeatwill,butthatshehadnotinitiallybeenaccordedherrightstoagrievanceprocedure,andgrantedherdamagesforthedelayedgrievanceprocedure.Thedefendantdoesnotchallengethisfindingonappeal. ThefindingbytheTrialJudgeof employmentatwillwascoupledwithafindingofarighttoa grievanceprocedurewhichwasdelayedinitsgranttoplaintiff. Noerrorisfoundinthefindingthattheplaintiffsemploymentwas atwillsubjecttoagrievanceprocedure.Inthislight,thefirstissuepresentsnoreversibleerror. Plaintiffssecondissuecomplainsthatshewasterminatedwithoutahearing.Therecordshowsthefollowingevents: October14,1992: LetterofTermination October26,1992: MeetingofPlaintiffssuperiorwithplaintiffandher   representative. October29,1992: Lettertoplaintiffreaffirmingdischargeandexplaininggrievance procedure. December2,1992: Lettertoplaintiffstatingreasonsfortermination. (DateUnstated): HearingbeforetheChairmanofthe PrivateIndustry  CommitteeappointedbytheMayortomonitortheoperationofthedivisioninwhich plaintiffwasemployed. Itdoesappearthatplaintiffwasaccordedahearing. Thesecondissuealsocomplainsofthefindingthatdefendanthadcausetoterminateplaintiff.ThecausewasdeficiencyintheperformanceofplaintiffinherrelationswiththeEmploymentTrainingDivisionoftheTennesseeDepartmentofLabor,thesourceoffundingforthedivisioninwhichplaintiffwasemployed. Plaintiffsissuesuggestssomedefectintheproceedingsinutilizingan afterdischargediscoverysuchasthatinvolvedinMcKennonv.NashvilleBannerPublishingCo.,6thCir.1993,9F.3d539.However,plaintiffsbriefstates:8 8 ...TheMcKennoncasehadnothingtodowiththerightsofanemployeegrowingoutofcontractbutsimplydealtwiththeapplicationoftheAgeDiscriminationinEmploymentActof1967,29U.S.C.621etseqtocaseswhereevidenceofwrongdoingwasdiscoveredafteradischargewhichviolatestheAct....Moreover,plaintiffsdeficiencywasknowntohersuperioratthetimeofherinitialdischarge,butwasnotrevealedtoplaintiffatthattimeinthemistakenbeliefthatcausewasnotneededfordischarge.ItwasthisdelayindisclosingthetruecauseofdischargeandprovidingahearingthereonthatinducedtheTrialJudgetoawardthe$13,600judgment. PlaintiffarguesthatshewasnotaccordedthebenefitofproceduressetoutintheCivilServiceManualwhich,shealleges,wasdeliveredtoheratheremployment.Asalreadypointedout,onlyanamendmentoftheCharterofdefendantwouldmaketheCivilServiceRegulationsapplicabletoplaintiff. PlaintiffalsocomplainsthatthepersonwhoheardherappealfromdischargewasnotaϜcityofficial,butwasaprivatebusinessmanwhochairedapublicsurveillancecommitteetokeepwatchonthedivisionofthemayorsofficewhereplaintiffworked.Nobreachofdueprocessisfoundinthedesignationofsuchapersontohearplaintiffsappeal. Insummary,therecordshowsthatplaintiffhasbeenrecompensedforanylegitimatecomplaintastounreasonabledischarge,andthatshehasnogroundsforadditionalrelief. ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmed.Costsofthisappealaretaxedagainsttheplaintiff.ThecauseisremandedtotheTrialCourtforanynecessary,furtherproceedings. AffirmedandRemanded.     _______________________________________     HENRYF.TODD     PRESIDINGJUDGE,MIDDLESECTIONCONCUR:_____________________________________SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE̛̜̜SEPARATECONCURRINGOPINION:WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE̛