You are here

Wing heard testimony from Ms. Renfroe and Mr.

Davis asserted that the positive urine specimen was not his. Davis argued that MedLab erred in labeling his specimen. To support this argument, Mr. I didn't watch anything else after that. I left and went back to work. After considering this testimony, 12 Mr. Wing determined that it was Mr. Davis' urine that tested positive for marijuana, and as such, his employment should be terminated for violating the Program's policies. Davis' employment was terminated effective September 12, On September 13, , Mr. Davis submitted to another drug test through his second employer, Kroger Corporation.

A hearing before the three-member Board was held on December 3, Davis again asserted that the positive urine specimen in question was not his.

In addition to arguing that he did not remember initialing the tamper-proof adhesive label on the specimen container and did not read the chain of custody form before signing it, Mr. Davis asserted that the chain of custody number located on the container might not match the chain of custody number found on the chain of custody form. Specifically, Mr.

• Human Resources - Employment?
• Shelby County Sheriff's Office.
• my talking tom для windows phone 7.
• About the Sheriff’s Office – Welcome To Shelby County Ohio.

Davis asserted that the chain of custody number on his paperwork is Concurrently, he asserted that the xerox copy of the label containing the chain of custody number and bar code, entered into evidence during the Board's hearing, did not conclusively show that the chain of custody number was Instead, as Mr. You're not looking at the original bottle. You're not looking at the original specimen.

Davis' Loudermill hearing, testified during the Board's hearing that he examined the actual specimen container, including the chain of custody number, prior to making his recommendation to terminate Mr. Davis' employment. Davis further argued that he never presented photo identification when he reported for his drug test. Davis did agree, however, that his name appeared on the uniform he wore during the test.

Finally, Mr. Davis argued that the Department never explained the discrepancy between the fact that Mr. Davis argued that, because the Department never presented Ms. On or about December 18, , the Board issued its findings, upholding Chief Wing's determination that Mr. Davis' employment should be terminated for violating the Department's drug policies. A hearing was held on April 6, , and the court ruled orally from the bench. Davis' petition, thus affirming the Board's decision.

1. Search form.
2. Sorry, this content is not available in your region..
3. worms world party mobile free download;

Davis filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals on May 17, , 17 arguing, as his sole issue, that the Board's decision to terminate Mr. Relying on the same arguments raised in the trial court, Mr. Davis asserted that the Department failed to show the necessary chain of custody that would allow the urine specimen test result to be admissible evidence and thus, that there was no material evidence to support the Board's decision.

Davidson County Sheriff Department Jobs

In its December 17, , opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Davis as to both the standard of review and the outcome. Davis'] employment was arbitrary where the Department was unable to present any evidence to establish that the specimen at issue in this case belonged, in fact, to Mr. The Court of Appeals continued:. Additionally, Mr. Davis' contention that he did not read the MedLab form before signing it is not, without more, sufficient to excuse him from its representations.

However, the Department's inability to establish that the specimen [chain of custody number] matched the MedLab form signed by Mr. Davis, coupled with the complete absence of any testimony or evidence regarding the procedures followed on August 20 and the unknown identity of the mysterious Michelle Swan or Swani or Swuni or Seeuni, simply renders the [Board's] decision based on the evidence of the record arbitrary.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the Board and trial court.

Career Opportunities | Shelby County Sheriff, AL

The Department timely filed an application for permission to appeal to this Court on January 24, , arguing that the Court of Appeals applied an inappropriate standard of review in reversing the Board's decision to terminate. City of Memphis, S. Under common law writ of certiorari review, a board's determination is arbitrary and void if it is unsupported by any material evidence.

Watts v. Civil Serv. No court of record of this state shall entertain any proceeding involving the civil service status of a county or municipal employee when such proceeding is in the nature of an appeal from a ruling of a city or county official or board which affects the employment status of a county or city employee, except such proceeding be one of common law certiorari.

Applications

Accordingly, under this section, review of administrative determinations affecting the employment status of county employees, including Board decisions, would have been under common law writ of certiorari review. See Huddleston v. City of Murfreesboro, S. Acts, ch. Thus, the legislature deleted the provision requiring common law writ of certiorari review and replaced it with the current provision providing for judicial review under the UAPA.

See Tenn. Code Ann. This subsection has not been subsequently amended. In most cases the correct standard of review has been applied. Comm'n of Memphis, S. Tompkins, S. Shelby County, No. Comm'n of Memphis, No. Shelby County Gov't Civil Serv. Merit Bd. June 13, There have been cases, however, where the intermediate appellate court has reverted to the old common law writ of certiorari review. Shelby County Civil Serv.

Shelby County Gov't, No. These cases do not reflect the correct standard of review. In clarifying the application of Tennessee Code Annotated section to this Board, a final issue needs to be addressed. In Shelby County Sheriff's Dep't v. Lowe, No. Although this Court has not previously addressed this issue, upon review we find that section does apply. Contested case hearings by civil service boards of a county or municipality which affect the employment status of a civil service employee shall be conducted in conformity with contested case procedures under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, compiled in title 4, chapter 5, part 3.

The provisions of subdivision a 1 pertaining to hearings by civil service boards shall not apply to municipal utilities boards or civil service boards of counties organized under a home rule charter form of government. See id. Having determined that the Court of Appeals applied the incorrect standard of review in this case, however, does not resolve all of the issues. Davis violated the Department's drug policy when the only evidence presented to support this finding was a contested drug test result?

Although our review of the Board's factual findings is confined to the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section , our review of matters of law is de novo with no presumption of correctness. Shim, S. The court may reverse or modify the decision if the rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:.

Applying this standard of review, a reviewing court may reverse the Board's decision only if one or more of the five enumerated grounds for reversal is present.