ÿWPCÈ /# ¢UN­ %û 0(w@)4i}Œ 0J” 0TÞ 0^2 0h 0rø 0|j 0†æ 0l 1uü 0dqU>ÕB) 0@< D3| B¯ DCÌ AM U*\ † v~Œ vÓ AQÝÆ. 0Dô 0D8 D/| B«˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÀDÁÂÃÄEÅÆÇÓ€ÓÖB\J#3|xÖ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d7Border 1dd* #Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial üÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òNovember€4,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›ò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌCITY€OF€MEMPHIS,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,ò òà àà à)à àó óShelby€Equity€No.€105517Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌTHE€CIVIL€SERVICE€COMMISSION€€€€)à àó óAppeal€No.€€02A01„9512„CH„00289Ìò òœÙ€*ÙßR€$&#A1-j|¸ù+` Å `€€@ÿRß›OF€THE€CITY€OF€MEMPHIS€and€€€€€€€€€€à à)ÌSTANLEY€SHOTWELL,€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àà àDefendants/Appellants.à àò ò)à àÌòòó óÌò òóóÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€D.€J.€ALISSANDRATOS,€CHANCELLORÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendants/Appellantsóó:òòÌóóÌœMonice€Moore€Hagler›à àà àœ€€€€€€€€€€€€Samuel€Morris›ÌœRonald€G.€Wyatt›à àà àà àà àœTimothy€Taylor€›ÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌò òÌÌÌà@ à€€€€€€€€€AFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌBROOKS€McLEMORE,€SP.€J.Ìò òÓ  ÓÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€|ÛXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑœOPINIONó óÌ›ÌÓ  Óà àThis€case€involves€a€chancery€court€review€of€a€decision€œby€a›€œcivil›€œservice›€œcommission.›€ÏThe€œcommission›€had€œordered€the€reinstatement›€of€a€police€officer.€€The€œchancery›€œcourt›€reversed€theÏœcommissionððs›€decision,€upholding€the€termination€of€the€officerððs€employment.€€We€affirm€theÏdecision€of€the€œchancery›€œcourt.›Ìà àIn€œJanuary€1993,›€œAppellant›€Lieutenant€Stanley€Shotwell€(ð ðShotwellðð),€a€twenty„one„yearÏveteran€with€the€Memphis€Police€Department,€voluntarily€entered€the€City€of€Memphisðð€EmployeeÏAssistance€Program€(ð ðEAPðð),€seeking€help€for€alcoholism.€€On€January€21,€1993,€he€signed€twoÏdifferent€documents.€€The€first€œwas€an›€Alcohol€and€Drug€Treatment€Policy€(ð ðTreatment€Policyðð).€ÏThe€Treatment€Policy€provided€that€ð ð[œa]ll›€City€of€Memphis€employees€have€a€responsibility€andÏduty€to€remain€free€of€illegal€substances€at€all€times.ðð€€In€signing€the€Treatment€Policy,€ShotwellÏagreed€to€the€following€provisions:ÌÓÓà8 à1.€€To€remain€free€of€illegal€drugs€for€the€remainder€of€your€employment€with€theÏCity.ÌÌà8 à2.€€To€agree€to€random€and/or€regularly€scheduled€drug€and€alcohol€screens€asÏdirected€by€EAP€staff,€EAP€Coordinators,€and/or€Division€Director€or€designee€forÏa€period€of€two€years€after€successful€discharge€from€the€EAP.ÌÌà8 à3.€€Immediate€reporting€for€drug€alcohol€screens€when€requested.ÌÌÓÓThe€Treatment€Policy€described€the€penalties€for€noncompliance€with€these€provisions:ÌÓÓà8 àShould€you€fail€to€remain€free€of€alcohol/illegal€drugs,€whether€by€test€or€selfÏadmission,€or€fail€to€report€for€a€drug€screen,€immediate€action€will€be€taken€toÏprotect€public€safety€and€City€property€interests.€€At€the€very€least,€you€will€not€beÏallowed€to€work€or€be€on€City€property€for€a€period€to€be€specified€by€the€EAP€staffÏand/or€your€division.€€Resumption€of€alcohol/illegal€drug€usage€will€be€reported€toÏmanagement€and€will€result€in€disciplinary€action.€€If€you€continue€the€use€ofÏalcohol/illegal€drugs,€this€will€result€in€termination€of€employment€with€the€City€ofÏMemphis.ÌÌà8 àIf€you€are€a€police€officer,€firefighter,€or€other€employee€in€a€safety€sensitiveÏposition,€you€may€be€terminated€upon€receipt€of€a€first€positive€drug€screen€afterÏentrance€into€the€Employee€Assistance€Program.ÌÌÓÓœThe›€second€document€Shotwell€signed€was€the€EAP€Participation€Agreement€„€Self€Referral€(ð ðEAPÏAgreementðð).€€The€EAP€Agreement€outlined€Shotwellððs€responsibilities:ÌÓÓà8 à1.€€To€keep€all€scheduled€appointments.ÌÌà8 à2.€€To€comply€with€all€facets€of€your€individual€treatment€program,€includingÏrandom€drug€screens€€(where€applicable).Ì̜Ǜà8 à3.€€To€provide€the€Employee€Assistance€Program€Administrator€with€informationÏregarding€quality€of€care€received€by€referral€sources.ÌÌÓÓThe€EAP€Agreement€provided€œfurther€that›€ð ðfailure€to€assume€the€above€stated€responsibilities€couldÏresult€in€discontinuance€of€the€services€of€the€Employee€Assistance€Program.ððÌà àSubsequently,€on€February€12,€1993,€Shotwell€signed€a€third€document,€an€individualizedÏœEAP€treatment›€plan€tailored€specifically€for€him€(ð ðPlanðð).€€It€required€the€following€of€Shotwell:ÌÓÓà8 à1.€€Remain€alcohol€and€drug€free€for€the€remainder€of€your€employment€with€CityÏof€Memphis.ÌÌà8 à2.€€Scheduled€Monday€and€Thursday€drug€screening€at€Med€Labs€until€modified€byÏEAP€staff,€Dr.€Tom€Hickey,€and/or€Dale€Shaefer.€€Please€refer€to€your€agreedÏAlcohol€and€Treatment€Policy€for€details€and€rules.€€òòFailure€to€remain€substance€freeÏwill€result€in€termination€ofœ€employmentóó.€(Emphasis€added).€€›ÌÌÓÓà àOver€the€next€eighteen€months,€Shotwell€underwent€over€twenty„eight€urine€screens,€noneÏof€which€tested€positive€for€alcohol€or€illegal€drugs.€€Then€on€September€19,€1994,€ShotwellÏsubmitted€a€urine€sample€which€tested€positive€for€the€presence€of€cocaine€in€his€system.€€€Ìà à€Shotwell€was€charged€with€two€œoffenses:€(1)›€a€narcotics€violation,€for€testing€positive€forÏcocaine€use,€œand€(2)›€failure€to€comply€with€regulations,€for€violating€his€contract€with€EAP€toÏremain€drug€free.€€An€administrative€hearing€was€held.€€At€the€hearing,€Shotwell€confessed€toÏhaving€imbibed€alcohol€at€a€police€department€staff€dinner€on€September€15,€four€days€before€theÏurine€screen,€and€on€his€birthday,€September€20,€a€day€after€the€screen.€€He€denied€having€usedÏcocaine€and€speculated€that€someone€had€spiked€his€drink€at€the€staff€dinner.€€Shotwell€said,€ð ðIÏhave€my€suspicions.€€There€is€nothing€I€can€say€other€than€I€donððt€know€what€happened.€€I€gotÏnailed,€there€is€nothing€I€can€say.ðð€€The€summary€of€the€hearing€states:€ð ðLt.€Shotwell€was€advisedÏhe€had€been€given€an€opportunity€to€correct€his€problem€when€he€entered€the€Employee€AssistanceÏProgram€and€that€it€was€apparent€that€the€contract€between€he€and€the€City€had€been€violated€andÏthat€the€results€would€be€decisive.ðð€€Subsequently,€Shotwellððs€employment€was€terminated.Ìà àShotwell€appealed€his€termination€to€the€Civil€Service€Commission,€and€a€hearing€wasÏheld.€A€number€of€€witnesses€testified,€including€Deputy€Chief€David€Dugger€and€Shotwell.€€TheÍthree€documents€Shotwell€signed,€the€Treatment€Policy,€the€EAP€Agreement€and€the€Plan,€wereÏintroduced€into€evidence.€€It€was€undisputed€œthat€Shotwell›€referred€himself€to€the€EAP,€and€did€notÏenter€it€as€a€result€of€a€disciplinary€incident.€€œDugger€testified›€that€he€understood€ShotwellððsÏprevious€statement€ð ðI€got€nailedðð€to€indicate€Shotwellððs€belief€that€he€had€been€set€up,€not€as€anÏadmission€of€guilt.€€He€€also€stated€that€there€existed€a€last„chance€contract€for€disciplinedÏemployees,€but€that€€Shotwell€had€not€signed€one.€€Dugger€œtestified€further›€that€other€policeÏofficers€had€been€disciplined€for€positive€drug€screens€but€not€œterminated.€€However,€he€testifiedÏthat€all€officers€who€had€signed€a€ð ðlast€chanceðð€agreement€were€terminated€if€they€subsequently€hadÏa€positive€drug€test.€€Shotwellððs›€superiors€testified€that€Shotwell€was€a€good€employee€with€noÏdiscipline€problems.€€Finally,€Shotwell€testified€that€he€was€in€EAP€for€help€with€an€alcoholÏproblem,€that€his€problem€had€not€affected€his€work,€that€he€sought€out€help€on€his€own,€that€heÏhad€not€ingested€cocaine,€that€he€had€read€the€EAP€documents€before€signing€them,€that€he€hadÏsigned€out€of€necessity€to€stay€in€the€program,€and€that€he€had€felt€that€some€of€the€language€inÏthose€documents€pertaining€to€discipline€œwas›€vague.Ìà àAfter€the€hearing,€the€Civil€Service€Commission€reversed€Shotwellððs€termination,€findingÏas€follows:ÌÓÓà8 à(a)€that€Mr.€Shotwell€did€voluntarily€enter€the€EAP€Program€as€a€self€referral€andÏdid€execute€the€EAP€contract€documents€presented;€(b)€that€the€City€was€entitled€toÏrequire€Mr.€Shotwell€to€submit€to€the€mandatory€urine€screen€on€September€19,Ï1994,€as€a€condition€of€his€EAP€Program;€(c)€that€Mr.€Shotwellððs€urine€screen€wasÏproperly€administered€by€the€Methodist€Hospital€laboratory,€that€the€urine€sampleÏwas€properly€handled€and€tested,€and€that€the€positive€result€was€scientificallyÏsupported;€and€(d)€that€based€upon€the€test€results,€the€City€had€a€reasonable€basisÏto€impose€discipline€upon€Mr.€Shotwell,€in€accordance€with€his€EAP€agreement.ÌÌà8 àThe€Commission€also€finds€(e)€that€at€the€time€of€Mr.€Shotwellððs€September€19,Ï1994€urine€screen,€he€had€been€employed€by€the€City€for€approximately€21€years,Ïhad€no€disciplinary€record€and€had€a€good€on€the€job€performance€record;€(f)€thatÏduring€the€course€of€his€EAP€Program,€Mr.€Shotwell€had€submitted€to€in€excess€ofÏ28€urine€screens,€which€except€for€the€September€19,€1994€urine€screen,€had€allÏproduced€negative€results;€(g)€that€the€EAP€Program€had€been€mandated€byÏgovernment€and€implemented€by€the€City€to€help€employees€with€problems€and€toÏthe€extent€possible€to€conserve€its€labor€resources;€(h)€that€other€Police€ServicesÏDivision€employees€under€the€EAP€Program€who€have€produced€positive€testÏresults€have€not€been€terminated€for€their€first€offenses;€and€(i)€that€the€language€ofÍthe€EAP€Participation€Agreement€„€Self€Referral€is€somewhat€ambiguous€in€that€itÏprovides€for€ð ðdisciplinary€actionðð€in€the€event€of€resumption€of€alcohol/illegal€drugÏusage,€ð ðterminationðð€for€continuation€of€the€use€of€alcohol/illegal€drugsðð,€and/orÏð ðterminationðð€for€failure€to€remain€substance€free.ÌÌà8 àBased€upon€all€of€the€above€findings,€the€Commission€concludes€(a)€that€the€EAPÏProgram€is€a€mandatory€program€that€must€be€fairly€enforced€by€the€City€and€not€beÏtaken€lightly€by€the€employee;€(b)€that€the€EAP€Program€is€intended€to€provide€theÏemployee€with€a€second€chance€with€covered€problems;€(c)€that€the€EAP€ProgramÏshould€afford€the€self€referral€employee,€who€has€sought€out€the€program,€not€toÏavoid€discipline,€but€to€obtain€help€with€the€problem,€with€the€same€opportunity€asÏa€management€referral€employee,€who€has€been€referred€to€the€program€to€avoidÏdiscipline€and€to€obtain€help€with€the€problem;€(d)€that€a€self€referral€employeeÏshould€not€be€required€to€sign€his€disciplinary€death€warrant€in€order€to€obtain€theÏhelp€the€EAP€Program€was€created€to€provide;€(e)€that€Mr.€Shotwell€did€violate€œtheÌ›ÌÌœà8 àterms›€of€his€EAP€agreement;€and€(f)€that€while€the€City€did€have€a€reasonable€basisÏto€impose€discipline€against€Mr.€Shotwell€for€his€EAP€violations,€termination€forÏhis€apparent€first€offense€was€not€reasonable€under€all€the€circumstances€of€thisÏcase.ÌÌÓÓThe€Commission€reinstated€Shotwell€to€his€previous€position€and€awarded€him€full€back€pay€andÏbenefits.Ìà àThe€City€of€Memphis€(the€ð ðCityðð)€appealed€this€decision€to€the€œChancery›€œCourt.›€€AfterÏreviewing€the€record€and€hearing€the€argument€of€counsel,€the€œChancery›€œCourt›€reversed€theÏCommission,€finding€that€the€Commission€had€acted€in€excess€of€its€statutory€authority€and,€in€theÏalternative,€that€the€Commissionððs€decision€was€not€supported€by€substantial€and€materialÏevidence.€€The€Chancery€œCourt›€noted€that€the€Commission€found€that€Shotwell€had€committed€aÏviolation€worthy€of€discipline€but€rejected€termination€as€being€too€œharsh€for›€a€first€offense€underÏthe€circumstances.€€The€Chancery€Court€stated€ð ðthat€this€is€not€a€reasonable€basis€that€theÏCommission,€after€it€goes€through€its€litany€of€complimenting,€supporting,€reinforcing€what€theÏCity€does,€to€now€reach€this€conclusion.ðð€€The€Chancery€Court€found€that€the€agreement€signed€byÏShotwell€was€unambiguous€and€that,€in€essence,€the€Commission€had€simply€disagreed€with€theÏCityððs€zero„tolerance€policy€towards€drug€use€by€police€officers.Ìà àShotwell€now€appeals€the€decision€of€the€œChancery›€œCourt.›€€He€argues€that€the€CommissionÏacted€properly€in€reinstating€him€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€an€improper€standard€ofÍreview€to€the€Commissionððs€decision.Ìà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€4„5„322€sets€forth€the€standard€of€review€for€the€œChancery›ÏœCourt›€in€reviewing€agency€decisions€such€as€those€of€the€Commission:ÌÓÓà8 àà à(h)€The€court€may€affirm€the€decision€of€the€agency€or€remand€the€case€forÏfurther€proceedings.€€The€court€may€reverse€or€modify€the€decision€if€the€rights€ofÏthe€petitioner€have€been€prejudiced€because€the€administrative€findings,€inferences,Ïconclusions€or€decisions€are:Ìà8 àà à(1)€In€violation€of€constitutional€or€statutory€provisions;Ìà8 àà à(2)€In€excess€of€the€statutory€authority€of€the€agency;Ìà8 àà à(3)€Made€upon€unlawful€procedure;Ìà8 àà à(4)€Arbitrary€or€capricious€or€characterized€by€abuse€of€discretion€or€clearlyÏunwarranted€exercise€of€discretion;€€orÌà8 àà à(5)€Unsupported€by€evidence€which€is€both€substantial€and€material€in€theÏlight€of€the€entire€record.Ìà8 àà àIn€determining€the€substantiality€of€evidence,€the€court€shall€take€intoÏaccount€whatever€in€the€record€fairly€detracts€from€its€weight,€but€the€court€shall€notÏsubstitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€agency€as€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence€onÏquestions€of€fact.̜Ǜà8 àà à(i)€No€agency€decision€pursuant€to€a€hearing€in€a€contested€case€shall€beÏreversed,€remanded€or€modified€by€the€reviewing€court€unless€for€errors€whichÏaffect€the€merits€of€such€decision.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(h)„(i)€(Supp.€1996).€€The€standard€for€appellate€review€of€suchÏactions€is€the€same€as€the€standard€for€the€Chancery€Courtððs€review.€€òòò òJackson€Mobilphone€Co.Ïv.€Tennessee€Pub.€Serv.€Commððnó óóó,€876€S.W.2d€106,€110€(Tenn.€App.€œ1993);›€òòò òCF€Indus.Ïv.€Tennessee€Pub.€Serv.€Commððnó óóó,€599€S.W.2d€536,€540€(Tenn.€1980).€€This€standard€ofÏreview€is€ð ðnarrower€œthan€›the€standard€of€review€normally€applicable€in€other€civil€cases.ðð€Ïò òòòJackson€Mobilphoneó óóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€110.€€Ìà àThe€ð ðarbitrary€and€capriciousðð€standard€under€Section€4„5„322€(h)(4)€is€discussed€at€someÏlength€in€ò òòòJackson€v.€Mobilphoneó óóó:ÌÓÓà8 à[œA]gency›€decisions€with€adequate,€evidentiary€support€may€still€be€arbitrary€andÏcapricious€if€caused€by€a€clear€error€in€judgment.€.€.€.Ìà8 àà àA€reviewing€court€should€not€apply€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(h)(4)ððsÏð ðarbitrary€and€capriciousðð€standard€of€review€mechanically.€€In€its€broadest€sense,Ïthe€standard€requires€the€court€to€determine€whether€the€administrative€agency€hasÏmade€a€clear€error€€in€judgment.€.€.€.€An€arbitrary€decision€is€one€that€is€not€basedÏon€any€course€of€reasoning€or€exercise€of€judgment,€.€.€.€or€one€that€disregards€theÏfacts€or€circumstances€of€the€case€without€some€basis€that€would€lead€a€reasonableÏperson€to€reach€the€same€conclusion.ÌÌÓÓò òòòJackson€Mobilphoneó óóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€œ110„11€(citations€omitted).›Ìà àIn€this€case,€it€is€undisputed€that€Shotwell€signed€the€Plan,€a€treatment€programÏindividualized€for€him,€and€that€the€œPlan›€stated€that€Shotwell€was€required€to:ÌÓÓà8 à1.€€Remain€alcohol€and€drug€free€for€the€remainder€of€your€employment€with€CityÏof€€€€€€€Memphis.ÌÌÓÓœAfter›€setting€forth€required€drug€screens€twice€weekly,€the€Plan€œstates›€unambiguously:ÌÓÓà8 àFailure€to€remain€substance€free€will€result€in€termination.ÌÌÓÓIt€is€also€undisputed€that€Shotwell€consumed€alcohol€twice,€first€at€a€staff€party€and€then€on€hisÏbirthday.€€Shotwell€œalleged›€that€œhe€tested€positive›€for€œcocaine›€because€his€drink€was€spiked€at€theÏparty€four€days€before€the€drug€screen,€but€he€provided€no€evidence€to€support€this€speculation.Ìà àAt€the€Commissionððs€hearing,€Lieutenant€Dugger€testified€generally€that€there€had€beenÍinstances€in€which€other€unnamed€police€officers€tested€positive€for€drug€use€and€were€not€fired.€ÏHowever,€there€was€no€evidence€that€officers€who€had€signed€agreements€that€stated€ð ðfailure€toÏremain€substance€free€will€result€in€terminationðð€were€nevertheless€not€fired.€€Indeed,€DuggerÏtestified€that€in€each€instance€in€which€the€office€had€signed€a€ð ðlast€chanceðð€agreement,€the€officer€œÌÌÌwas›€fired.€€Shotwell€notes€that€he€never€signed€a€ð ðlast€chanceðð€agreement,€but€the€individualizedÏPlan€he€signed€states€unambiguously€that€a€positive€result€on€a€drug€screen€œð ðwill›€result€inÏœtermination.ðð›Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€Commission€emphasized€that€Shotwell€referred€himself€to€the€EAP,€foundÏthat€other€police€employees€in€the€EAP€who€had€positive€drug€screens€had€not€been€fired,€andÏtermed€the€language€in€the€EAP€Agreement€ð ðsomewhat€ambiguous.ðð€€Significantly,€theÏCommission€stated:€Ìœ›ÓÓà8 à.€.€.€that€a€self€referral€employee€should€not€be€required€to€sign€his€disciplinaryÏdeath€warrant€in€order€to€obtain€the€help€the€EAP€Program€was€created€to€provide.€.Ï.€.ÌÌÓÓœIn›€its€ruling,€the€Chancery€Court€observed:ÌÓÓà8 àIn€this€Courtððs€œopinion,›€a€fair€reading€of€what€the€Commission€has€done€is€that€theyÏhave€ruled,€in€essence,€that€they€disagree€with€that€zero€tolerance€policy.ÌÌÓÓœThe›€record€supports€this€observation.Ìà àThe€Commission€acknowledged€that€the€City€had€ð ða€reasonable€basis€to€impose€disciplineÏagainst€Mr.€Shotwell€for€his€EAP€violations,ðð€but€concluded€that€termination€was€not€reasonable.€ÏHowever,€the€undisputed€evidence€in€the€record€establishes€that€the€City€had€a€reasonable€basis€forÏtermination.€€Regardless€of€any€ambiguities€in€other€documents,€the€Plan€signed€by€Shotwell€isÏstark€in€its€œclarity:›€ð ðFailure€to€remain€substance€free€will€result€in€termination€of€employment.ðð€ÏShotwell€œadmitted›€that€he€did€not€remain€alcohol„free€and€produced€no€evidence€that€the€positiveÏdrug€screen€for€cocaine€was€the€result€of€a€mistake€or€a€ð ðset„up.ðð€€Under€these€circumstances,€weÍmust€conclude€€that€the€œCommissionððs›€decision€to€reinstate€Shotwell€was€arbitrary€and€œcapricious.€ÏWe€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Chancery€Court,€reversing€the€Commission€and€upholding€theÏtermination€of€Shotwellððs€employment.›Ìà àWe€are€mindful€of€the€fact€that€Shotwell€is€a€twenty„one€year€veteran€of€the€police€forceÏwho,€until€his€substance€problems€arose,€had€no€disciplinary€record€and€a€good€job€performanceÏrecord.€€Termination€is€indeed€a€harsh€result.€€However,€particularly€for€a€sensitive€position€suchÏas€that€of€a€police€officer,€the€City€must€be€permitted€to€impose€a€zero„tolerance€policy€to€combatÏsubstance€abuse€œwithin›€the€police€force,€without€such€a€policy€being€undermined€by€theÏœCommission.›ÌœÇ›à àThe€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€Appellant,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.€€€€€€€ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌBROOKS€McLEMORE,€SP.€J.ó ó