ÿWPCy 4# èUNó %A 0cGU<ªw@æ4&: 0I 0d 0u‹U <“ 0@Ï 0J 0TY 0^­ 0h 0rs 0|å 0†a 0ç 1uw 0dì BP AQm ƾ 0D„ 0DÈ 0D  D/P B D3œB)ÏDCø AM;U*ˆV²U v~(vÓ¦˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XaBXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman *+E,-D.D/U0U1î2Ó€3Ó€ê‚_#3|x<<ujÿÿ:Default ParaÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔQ‡ ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔQ‡ ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ<jjÿÿ:Footnote TexÔ‡ôôôÔÔQ‡ ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔQ‡ ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ<mmÿÿ:Footnote RefÔ‡ôôôÔÔQ‡ ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔòòÔ‡ôôôÔÔQ‡ ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔóóô\  `$Times NewRoman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 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 d!"$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd!-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial LÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌAugustÏ19,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó< Œ 9p`(PtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¼ÝXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÙ€!ÙßR€.0-A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òCHARLES€STEPHEN€SANFORD,€ó óÌÌà àPetitioner„Appellee,ÌÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€01A01„9710„CH„00578ÌÌò òTENNESSEE€DEPARTMENT€OFÌENVIRONMENT€&€CONSERVATIONÌand€TENNESSEE€CIVIL€SERVICEÌCOMMISSION,€ó óÌÌà àRespondents„Appellants.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€DAVIDSON€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌà@ àJames€G.€Stranch€IIIÌà@ àBryan€E.€PieperÌà@ àBranstetter,€Kilgore,€Stranch€&€Jennings€of€NashvilleÌà@ àFor€AppelleeÌÌà@ àJohn€Knox€Walkup,€Attorney€General€and€ReporterÌà@ àEugenia€B.€Whitesell,€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà@ àFor€AppellantsÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óóóÌÌà@ àOpinion€filed:ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌÑ  ÑÓÓÔ€ôÔ›à àÔ€XÔThis€is€an€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€reversal€of€a€final€order€of€theÏTennessee€Civil€Service€Commission€(the€Commission).€€The€CommissionððsÏfinal€order€upheld€Petitioner/Appellee€Charles€Sanfordððs€termination€ofÏemployment€with€the€Department€of€Environment€and€Conservation€(TDEC)Ïbased€on€insubordination.€€The€trial€court€reversed€the€Commissionerððs€order,Ïfinding€that€it€was€not€supported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence.Ìà àThe€pertinent€facts€are€as€follows:€Charles€Sanford€was€employed€by€theÏDepartment€of€Environment€and€Conservation,€Division€of€ConstructionÏGrants€and€Loans€(CGL€Division)€in€1987.€€Sanford€joined€a€section€of€the€CGLÏDivision,€called€the€facilities€assessment€section,€in€March€1992€and€remainedÍthere€until€his€discharge€in€January€of€1993.€€Among€its€functions,€the€facilityÏassessment€section€bi„annually€completes€a€wastewater€facility€needs€surveyÏ(Needs€Survey)€that€it€submits€to€the€EPA.€€Sanfordððs€primary€jobÏresponsibilities€during€1992€included€assisting€with€the€Needs€Survey.€€He€wasÏassigned€to€work€with€the€other€staff€and€his€supervisors€to€collect€informationÏfrom€municipalities€in€Tennessee€regarding€wastewater€needs€and€then€toÏsubmit€the€information€on€a€computer€data€base€in€accordance€with€the€EPAððsÏguidelines.Ìà àSanford€received€an€oral€warning€on€April€16,€1992Ý‚ ÿÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ ÔòòÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÝóóÔ€1ÔÔ€1XÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€, §u` Ñ€for€insubordinationÏrelated€to€his€frequent€unannounced€and€unscheduled€visits€to€TDECÏCommissioner€Lunaððs€office.€€Prior€to€1992€Sanford€received€two€oral€warningsÏfor€similar€conduct,€including€incidents€of€abusive€language€toward€hisÏsupervisor€and€a€fellow€employee.€€The€April€16,€1992€oral€warning€was€followedÏwith€a€letter€dated€April€21,€1992,€which€advised€Sanford€that€he€mustÏdiscontinue€the€insubordinate€behavior€or€further€disciplinary€action,€up€to€andÏincluding€dismissal,€would€result.Ìà àOn€November€25,€1992,€Sanford€received€a€written€warning€for€hisÏcontinued€unprofessional€behavior€and€his€habit€of€spending€time€on€extraneousÏissues.€€The€written€warning€relayed€an€incident€where€Sanford€disobeyed€theÍdirections€of€his€supervisor€and€was€ð ðrude,€loud,€and€unprofessionalðð€whenÏquestioned€on€the€matter.€€The€written€warning€also€documents€that€SanfordÏcontinued€to€pursue€personal€projects€at€work€that€were€not€directly€related€toÏhis€job.Ìà àThe€next€incident€that€promoted€punishment€occurred€on€December€17,Ï1992.€€Sanfordððs€supervisor,€Karen€Grubbs€(Grubbs),€specifically€asked€SanfordÏto€review€data€on€municipalities€for€which€he€was€responsible.€€Sanford€refusedÏto€do€the€work€stating€that€he€was€ð ðworking€on€a€proposal€for€a€JointÏResolution€for€Congress.ðð€€Although€he€was€specifically€told€not€to€pursue€thatÏwork€on€state€time,€he€continued€to€do€so.€€Sanford€told€his€supervisor€that€sheÏwas€making€him€sick€and€requested€annual€leave€for€the€rest€of€the€day.€€TheÏrequest€was€denied€and€Sanford€asked€for€sick€leave.€€The€sick€leave€wasÏapproved€on€the€condition€that€he€would€go€home.€€Sanford€did€not€go€œhomeÏbut,›€instead,€remained€in€the€office.€€Grubbs€reported€to€Ron€GrahamÏ(Graham),€director€of€CGL€Division,€that€Sanford€was€in€the€office€being€veryÏdisruptive€and€ð ðwild€eyed.ðð€€Graham€had€to€request€that€Sanford€leave€theÏoffice.Ìà àAs€a€result€of€the€December€17€incident,€combined€with€numerousÏformal€and€informal€oral€and€written€warnings€regarding€his€insubordination,ÍGrubbs€recommended€to€Jim€Poff€(Poff),€deputy€director€of€the€GCL€division,Ïand€Graham€that€Sanford€be€suspended€for€3€days€for€insubordination.€€A€dueÏprocess€hearing€was€held€on€December€21,€1992.€€At€the€hearing,€Sanford€didÏnot€make€any€responses€to€the€charges€and€the€suspension€was€upheld.Ìà àImmediately€after€the€hearing,€Graham€met€with€Grubbs,€Sanford€andÏPoff€regarding€the€Needs€Survey.€€They€discussed€the€importance€of€completingÏas€much€work€as€possible€that€day€in€order€to€meet€the€upcoming€deadline.€ÏAfter€the€meeting,€Sanford€requested€to€take€off€the€rest€of€the€afternoon.€ÏGrubbs€denied€the€leave,€but€told€Sanford€he€could€leave€after€he€finished€hisÏassignment€specified€at€the€meeting.€€Despite€her€response,€Sanford€handed€theÏreceptionist€a€leave€slip€and€told€her€that€he€was€leaving€for€the€rest€of€theÏafternoon.€€Graham€attempted€to€stop€Sanford€at€the€elevator€and€againÏexplained€to€him€the€importance€of€completing€the€project€that€day.€€GrahamÏreminded€Sanford€of€the€due€process€hearing€held€earlier€that€day€and€toldÏSanford€that€if€he€left€without€approved€leave€it€would€result€in€his€termination.€ÏSanfordððs€only€response€was€ð ðGet€real,ðð€as€he€got€on€the€elevator€and€left.€ÏSanford€returned€later€in€the€day,€but€he€did€not€explain€his€previous€behaviorÏand€refused€to€tell€his€supervisors€what€time€he€had€returned.Ìà àAs€a€result€of€this€incident,€Grubbs€and€Graham€recommended€byÏmemoranda€dated€December€22,€1992,€termination€of€Sanfordððs€employmentÏbased€on€insubordination.€€By€letter€dated€December€28,€1992,€David€Gregory,ÏAssistant€Commissioner€of€TDEC,€notified€Sanford€of€the€recommendation€forÏtermination€and€notified€Sanford€that€his€due€process€hearing€would€be€held€onÏDecember€30,€1992.€€The€letter€stated€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAttached€for€your€review€are€your€supervisorððs€andÏdirectorððs€reports€of€an€à àincident€which€occurredÏMonday,€December€œ22,€[sic]›€1992,€following€yourÏinformal€hearing€for€insubordination.€€The€reportsÏdescribe€your€response€to€Karen€Grubbsðð€refusal€toÏgrant€annual€leave€after€she€had€discussed€theÏimportance€of€completion€of€a€portion€of€the€NeedsÏAssessment€project.ÌÌà8 àà8 àBefore€the€suspension€had€been€decided€after€the€dueÏprocess€hearing€for€insubordination€this€morning€youÏagain€exhibited€disregard€for€direct€instructions€ofÏyour€supervisor,€Karen€Grubbs,€and€the€DivisionÏdirector,€Ron€Graham,€by€à àindicating€that€youÏwere€on€leave.ÌÌà8 àà8 àBecause€of€your€continued€disregard€of€reasonableÏwork€assignments,€you€are€again€charged€withÏinsubordination€and€have€been€recommended€forÏtermination.ÌÌÓÓThe€supervisorsðð€memoranda€recommending€termination€were€attached€to€theÏletter.€œGrubbsððs›€memo€contained€all€the€issues€relating€to€the€recurringÏdisruptive€and€insubordinate€behavior€that€kept€escalating€until€his€dismissal.€ÍShe€explained€how€his€activities€had€affected€his€job€performance€andÏspecifically€noted:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àHis€credibility€with€the€EPA„Region€IV€and€HQ€hasÏbeen€severely€impaired€à àby€his€constant€refusal€toÏfollow€guidelines€and€procedures€established€for€theÏNeeds€Survey.€€EPA€HQ€personnel€have€requestedÏthat€Steve€not€communicate€with€HQ€staff€as€TNÏNeeds€Coordinator,€which€presents€a€hindrance€inÏeffectively€compiling€an€accurate€estimate€of€TNÏNeeds.€€The€constant€determination€to€representÏinformation€ð ðhis€wayðð€has€caused€much€of€theÏinformation€to€be€not€included€in€the€EPA€report.€ÏOver€the€past€year,€Steve€has€been€directlyÏinsubordinate€to€me€by€pursuing€activities€he€was€toldÏà ànot€to€pursue,€by€not€performing€assignmentsÏas€instructed,€by€not€keeping€me€informed€of€isÏwhereabouts€and€activities€„„€even€when€askedÏdirectly.€€He€has€also€told€me€I€am€not€his€supervisorÏon€several€occasions.€ÌÌÓÓà àSanfordððs€employment€was€terminated€by€letter€dated€January€19,€1993.€ÏSanford€filed€a€grievance€regarding€his€dismissal€and€subsequently€had€a€Level€IVÏgrievance€hearing.€€By€letter€dated€February€17,€1993,€Commissioner€LunaÏupheld€the€dismissal.€€Sanford€appealed€the€decision€to€the€Commission,€and€aÏhearing€was€held€June€28€„€30,€1994€and€June€25€„€26,€1995€before€anÏAdministrative€Law€Judge.€€On€August€8,€1995,€the€Administrative€Law€JudgeÏentered€an€Initial€Order€upholding€Sanfordððs€termination€on€the€ground€ofÏinsubordination.€€Sanford€appealed€to€the€Civil€Service€Commission€(CSC),€andÍthe€Commission€adopted€the€ALJððs€findings.€œ(›œA›€copy€of€the€initial€order€isÏattached€as€an€addendum€to€this€opinion.)Ìà àSanford€filed€a€petition€for€judicial€review€in€the€trial€court.€€The€trialÏcourt€reversed€the€CSC€œorder,›€finding€that€the€order€lacked€specificity€as€to€theÏcharge€of€insubordination€and€was€not€supported€by€substantial€and€materialÏevidence.€€The€trial€court€further€found€that€TDEC€had€failed€to€comply€withÏT.C.A.€ðð€8„30„331€(b)(1)€(1993),€which€entitles€an€employee€to€detailed€noticeÏof€the€charges€against€the€employee.Ìà àThe€State€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€the€issues€for€ourÏreview€are:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€Civil€ServiceÏCommissionððs€final€order€was€not€supported€by€substantial€and€materialÏevidence,€and€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€Department€ofÏEnvironment€and€Conservation€failed€to€comply€with€T.C.A.€ðð€8„30„331€(b)(1),Ïas€to€notice€of€the€charges€against€him.€€Ìà àAs€to€the€first€issue,€the€State€argues€that€the€administrative€record€isÏreplete€with€substantial€and€material€evidence€that€termination€was€appropriateÏbased€on€the€incident€that€occurred€on€December€21,€1992€and€œSanfordððsÏbehavior›€prior€to€this€incident.€€à àThe€trial€courtððs€review€of€theÏCommissionððs€œdecision›€is€governed€by€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322€(h)€(Supp.€1997),€whichÍsets€forth€the€standard€of€review€on€appeal€of€administrative€proceedings€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(h)€The€court€may€affirm€the€decision€of€the€agencyÏor€remand€the€case€for€further€proceedings.€€The€courtÏmay€reverse€or€modify€the€decision€if€the€rights€of€theÏpetitioner€have€been€prejudiced€because€theÏadministrative€findings,€inferences,€conclusions€orÏdecisions€are:Ìà8 àà8 àà8 à(1)€In€violation€of€constitutional€orÏstatutory€provisions;Ìà8 àà8 àà8 à(2)€In€excess€of€the€statutory€authority€ofÏthe€agency;Ìà8 àà8 àà8 à(3)€Made€upon€unlawful€procedure;Ìà8 àà8 àà8 à(4)€Arbitrary€or€capricious€orÏcharacterized€by€abuse€of€discretion€orÏclearly€unwarranted€exercise€ofÏdiscretion;€orÌà8 àà8 àà8 à(5)€Unsupported€by€evidence€which€isÏboth€substantial€and€material€in€the€lightÏof€the€entire€record.ÌÌà8 àà8 àIn€determining€the€substantiality€of€evidence,€theÏcourt€shall€take€into€account€whatever€in€the€recordÏfairly€detracts€from€its€weight,€but€the€court€shall€notÏsubstitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€agency€as€toÏthe€weight€of€the€evidence€on€questions€of€fact.ò òòò€€ÌÌÓÓà àó óóóIn€òòò òTennessee€Depððt€of€Human€Servs.€v.€Tennessee€Civil€Servs.€Commððnó óóó,ÏNo.€œ01A01„9504„CH„00143,›€1995€WL€œ581086›€œ(Tenn.App.›€Oct.€5,€1995),€thisÏCourt€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€scope€of€review€in€this€Court€is€the€same€asÏin€the€trial€court:€to€review€findings€of€fact€of€theÏadministrative€agency€upon€a€standard€of€substantialÍand€material€evidence.€€ò òòòHumana€of€Tenn.€v.€Tenn.ÏHealth€Facilities€Commððnó óóó,€551€S.W.2d€664Ï(Tenn.1997);€òòò òDePriest€v.€Puettó óóó,€669€S.W.2d€669Ï(Tenn.App.€1984).€€Thus,€substantial€and€materialÏevidence€is€required€to€sustain€the€action€of€anÏadministrative€tribunal.€€òòò òPace€v.€Garbage€DisposalÏDist.ó óóó,€54€Tenn.App.€263,€267,€390€S.W.2d€461,€463Ï(1965).€€What€amounts€to€ð ðsubstantial€and€materialððÏevidence€as€contained€in€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322€(h)€is€notÏclearly€defined€in€the€statute.€Generally,€the€standardÏrequires€ð ðsomething€less€than€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.ðð€€òòò òWayne€County€v.€Tennessee€Solid€WasteÏDisposal€Control€Bd.ó óóó,€756€S.W.€2d€274,€280Ï(Tenn.App.1988);€òòò òConsolo€v.€Federal€MaritimeÏCommððnó óóó,€383€U.S.€607,€620,€86€S.Ct.€1018,€1026€16ÏL.Ed.2d€131€(1966),€ð ðbut€more€than€a€scintilla€orÏglimmer.ðð€€ò òòòWayne€Countyóóó ó,€756€S.W.2d€at€280;€òòò òPaceó óóó,Ï54€Tenn.App.€at€267,€390€S.W.2d€at€463.ÌÌò òòòTennessee€Depððtóóó ó€ò òòòof€Human€Servs.,€ó óóó1995€WL€581086,€at€*3.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€mandate€to€the€œCourt›€is€quite€explicit€that€while€this€œCourt›€mayÏconsider€evidence€in€the€record€that€detracts€from€its€weight,€the€court€is€notÏallowed€to€substitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€agency€concerning€the€weightÏof€the€evidence.€€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(h),€ò òòòPaceó óóó,€54€Tenn.€App.€at€266,€390€S.W.2dÏat€463.Ìà àThe€evidence€before€the€tribunal€must€be€such€relevant€evidence€as€aÏreasonable€mind€might€accept€as€adequate€to€support€a€rational€conclusion€andÏsuch€as€to€furnish€a€reasonably€sound€basis€for€the€action€under€consideration.€òòò òÏPaceó óóó,€54€Tenn.App.€at€267,€390€S.W.2d€at€463.Ìà àUnder€the€narrow€scope€of€review€set€out€in€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322€(b),€we€findÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€reversing€the€Commissionððs€decision€to€uphold€ÏSanfordððs€termination.€€Specifically,€we€find€that€the€Commission€was€not€inÏerror€in€considering€prior€incidents€of€insubordination€and€disciplinary€mattersÏthat€involved€Sanford.€€€Supervisors€have€the€discretion€on€how€to€discipline€anÏemployee.€€This€Court€held€in€òòò òTennessee€Depððt.€of€Human€œServicesó óóó,›€thatÏdismissal€is€appropriate€when€a€lesser€disciplinary€action€will€not€end€theÏbehavioral€œproblem.€ò òòòId.ó óóó,1995€WL€581086,€at€*4›œ.›€€In€the€instant€case,€SanfordÏhad€not€effectively€been€performing€his€job€and€was€disturbing€the€CGLÏDivision,€and€previous€attempts€at€discipline€had€failed.€€The€record€before€theÏALJ€and€the€trial€court€clearly€showed€that€throughout€his€employment,€SanfordÏhad€consistently€been€warned€against€insubordinate€behavior.Ìà àWe€cannot€agree€with€the€lower€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€CSC€failed€toÏinclude€specific€findings€concerning€the€charge€of€insubordination€for€hisÏconduct€on€December€21,€1992.€€After€Sanford€attended€the€meeting€withÏGraham,€Poff€and€Grubbs€to€discuss€the€importance€of€completing€the€workÏquickly,€he€asked€for€annual€leave€for€the€day.€€Although,€his€supervisor,€Grubbs,Ïdenied€the€leave,€Sanford€left€work€anyway.€€Grubbs€notified€Graham€ofÏSanfordððs€intentions€to€leave€work.€€Graham€made€a€second€attempt€toÍpersuade€Sanford€to€stay€as€Sanford€waited€for€the€elevator.€€Graham€againÏexplained€the€importance€of€completing€the€assignment€that€day.€€He€furtherÏtold€Sanford€that€if€he€left€it€would€lead€to€his€termination.€€Sanford€refused€toÏtalk€to€Graham€and€told€the€receptionist€to€tell€Graham€that€Graham€wasÏbothering€him€while€he€was€on€his€own€time.€€His€only€words€to€Graham€wereÏð ðGet€realðð€as€he€got€on€the€elevator€to€leave.€€Despite€Sanfordððs€contention€thatÏhe€merely€went€to€lunch€and€returned,€he€did€not€inform€anyone€of€this.€€InÏfact,€he€turned€in€a€leave€slip€for€the€entire€day€to€the€receptionist€and€told€herÏthat€he€was€ð ðgone€for€the€day.ðð€€Even€when€Sanford€returned€to€the€office€laterÏthat€day,€he€refused€to€tell€his€supervisor€when€he€had€returned€and€offered€noÏexplanation€for€his€earlier€behavior.€€Further,€Sanford€was€overheard€thatÏafternoon€to€say€that€he€was€working€on€his€own€time.€€Thus,€we€hold€that€sinceÏprevious€disciplinary€actions€had€not€satisfactorily€remedied€SanfordððsÏpropensity€for€insubordinate€conduct,€the€ALJððs€judgment€demonstrates€whyÏtermination€was€appropriate€based€on€the€December€21,€1992€incident.€Ìà àAs€to€the€second€issue,€the€State€avers€that€the€December€œ28,›€1992€letterÏand€the€attached€œmemoranda›€provided€Sanford€with€proper€notice€under€T.C.A.Ïðð€8„30„331€(b)(1)€that€he€was€being€terminated€for€his€continuousÍinsubordination€and€that€the€December€21,€1992€incident€was€the€ð ðstraw€thatÏbroke€the€camelððs€back.ððÌà àT.C.A€.€ðð€8„30„331€(b)(1)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò8„30„331.€Minimum€due€process.ó 󀄀ò òÌÌà8 àà8 àà àà àó ó*à àà à*à àà à*ò òÌà8 àà8 àó ó(b)€Minimum€due€process€consists€of€the€following:Ìà8 àà8 à(1)€The€employee€shall€be€notified€of€the€charges.€€Ïsuch€notification€should€be€in€writing€and€shall€detailÏtimes,€places,€and€other€pertinent€facts€concerning€theÏcharges.ÌÌÓÓBasic€due€process€requires€ð ðnotice€reasonably€calculated€under€all€theÏcircumstances,€to€apprise€interested€partiesðð€of€the€claims€of€the€opposingÏparties.€€òòò òMullane€v.€Central€Hanover€Bank€&€Trust€Co.ó óóó,€339€U.S.€306,€314,€70ÏS.Ct.€652,€657€94€L.Ed.€865€(1950).€€The€purpose€of€due€process€requirementsÏis€to€notify€the€individual€in€advance€in€order€to€allow€adequate€preparation€andÏreduce€surprise.€€òòò òMemphis€Light,€Gas€&€Water€Div.€v.€Craftó óóó,€436€U.S.€1,€14,€98ÏS.Ct.€1554,€1562„63,€56€L.E.2d€30€(1978).Ìà àœThe€trial€courtððs€memorandum€refers€to€the€departmentððs€letterÏterminating€Sanfordððs€employment.€€This€letter€is€dated€January€19,€1993€andÏrefers€to€the€numerous€incidents€involving€Sanfordððs€insubordination€andÏspecifically€refers€to€the€informal€hearing€held€on€December€30,€1992€beforeÏAssistant€Commissioner€David€Gregory.€€It€is€important€to€note€that€theÍDecember€30,€1992€hearing€was€held€pursuant€to€a€notice€given€in€the€letterÏdated€December€28,€1992,€which€included€as€attachments€reports€fromÏSanfordððs€supervisors€and€directors€relating€the€specific€incident€of€DecemberÏ22,€1992.€€The€letter€explicitly€informed€Sanford€that€his€supervisors€hadÏrecommended€him€for€termination€based€on€insubordination.€€€The€letter€alsoÏattached€memoranda€written€by€Grubbs€and€Graham€that€described€theÏincident€on€December€21,€1992,€when€Sanford€had€been€insubordinate€andÏnoted€a€previous€pattern€of€insubordination.Ìà àThe€letter€and€the€memoranda€show€that€Sanfordððs€continuedÏinsubordination€was€considered€in€the€decision€to€terminate€him.€€TheÏDecember€28,€1992€letter€noted€Sanfordððs€ð ðcontinued€disregard€of€reasonableÏwork€assignmentsðð€and€Grubbsððs€memorandum€stated€that€Sanford€had€beenÏinsubordinate€over€the€past€year.€Sanford€should€have€been€aware€that€anÏexplanation€for€his€insubordinate€behavior€throughout€his€employment€wouldÏbe€necessary.€€Sanford€was€provided€adequate€pre„hearing€notice€of€the€factsÏwhich€would€be€presented€against€him€and€of€the€policies€which€his€conductÏmight€be€deemed€to€violate.€€Thus,€we€find€that€the€State€satisfied€theÏconstitutional€due€process€requirements€and€the€specific€statutory€andÏregulatory€notice€requirements.€€Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€reversing€the€Commissionððs€final€order€isÏreversed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€beÏnecessary.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€appellee.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌ____________________________________Ìò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óœÔ€1Ô