Roy Shanks v. Hazel Albert

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
August 30, 2001 Session
ROY MICHAEL SHANKS v. HAZEL R. ALBERT, ACTING
COMMISSIONER, TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
SECURITY, ET AL.
Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamblen County
No. 98-229 Thomas R. Frierson, II, Chancellor
FILED NOVEMBER 9, 2001
No. E2001-00066-COA-R3-CV
Roy Michael Shanks appeals dismissal of his suit seeking to overturn a determination of the Board
of Review that he was not entitled to unemployment compensation because of misconduct. We
concur in the determination of the Chancellor and affirm.
Tenn.R.App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed;
Cause Remanded
HOUSTON M. GODDARD , P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P. FRANKS and
D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JJ., joined.
Paul G. Whetstone, Morristown, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Roy Michael Shanks
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, and Douglas Earl Dimond, Assistant Attorney
General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Hazel R. Albert
Robert C. Jessee and Lori L. Jessee, Morristown, Tennessee, for the Appellee, The City of
Morristown
OPINION
In this suit seeking unemployment compensation, Roy Michael Shanks appeals the judgment
of the Trial Court which found--as did the Appeals Tribunal to which it was appealed from the
Agency, and the Board of Review where it was appealed from the Appeals Tribunal--that Mr. Shanks
was not entitled to unemployment compensation because of his misconduct in fighting with a fellow
employee on City of Morristown property.1
The standard of review of the Chancellor is set forth in T.C.A. 50-7-304 and is likewise our
standard of review on appeal. Ford v. Traughber, 813 S.W.2d 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991):
(2) The chancellor may affirm the decision of the board or the chancellor
may reverse, remand or modify the decision if the rights of the petitioner have
been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or
decisions are:
(A) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(B) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(C) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(D) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or
clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or
(E) Unsupported by evidence which is both substantial and material in
the light of the entire record.
(3) In determining the substantiality of evidence, the chancellor shall take
into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight, but the
chancellor shall not substitute the chancellor’s judgment for that of the board of
review as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. No decision of the
board shall be reversed, remanded or modified by the chancellor unless for errors
which affect the merits of the final decision of the board. Such petition for
judicial review shall be heard by the chancellor either at term time or vacation as
a matter of right, any other statute of this state to the contrary notwithstanding.
We have read the Chancellor’s order dismissing Mr. Shanks’ claim, as well as the testimony
introduced before the Appeals Tribunal and concur in the Chancellor’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
The judgment of the Chancellor is accordingly affirmed and the case remanded for collection
of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Roy Michael Shanks and his surety.
_________________________________________
HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE
1
The altercation began in the break roo m before the participa nts had clocked out, and concluded in the
City’s parking lo t.
-2-