Beard v. Hickman County Government

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

COLUMBIA DIVISION

JAMES DARRELL BEARD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) NO. 1:22-cv-00019

)

HICKMAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT, ) JUDGE CAMPBELL

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ filings regarding the equitable remedies of

reinstatement and front pay in this matter. (See Doc. Nos. 108, 109,113, 114, 117, 124). For the

reasons stated herein, the Court AWARDS Plaintiff James Darrell Beard the remedy of

reinstatement to the Sheriff’s Department of Defendant Hickman County Government.

I. INTRODUCTION

Hickman County’s Sheriff’s Department hired Mr. Beard in 2011. (Parties’ Joint Fact

Stipulations, Doc. No. 94 ¶ 1). As part of his employment, Hickman County provided Mr. Beard

with health insurance, disability benefits, and contributed to his retirement with the Tennessee

Consolidated Retirement System. (Id. ¶¶ 24-25). Mr. Beard is diabetic, and his left leg was

amputated in May 2021. Hickman County terminated Mr. Beard’s employment less than a month

later. At the time of his termination, Mr. Beard’s annual rate of pay was $44,280.00 (Id. ¶ 22). Mr.

Beard lost his designation as Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”) certified when

Hickman County terminated his employment.

On February 28, 2025, a jury in Columbia, Tennessee found that Hickman County

unlawfully terminated Mr. Beard’s employment because of his disabilities and in retaliation for

exercising his federally protected civil rights. (Verdict Form, Doc. No. 105).1 The jury awarded

Mr. Beard $143,387.00 in backpay and $250,000.00 in compensatory damages. On March 3, 2025,

the Court entered a judgment in conformity with the jury’s verdict. (Judgment, Doc. No. 107).

The Court ordered the parties to file post-trial briefs addressing the remedies of front pay

and reinstatement. (See Doc. No. 106). Mr. Beard seeks reinstatement or, in the alternative, front

pay. (Doc. No. 108). Hickman County opposes reinstating Mr. Beard because of his disabilities.

(Doc. No. 109). It also opposes front pay. (Id.). Both parties identify POST certification as a

potential hinderance to Mr. Beard’s reinstatement as a sergeant with the Sheriff’s Department.

II. POLICE OFFICER QUALIFICATIONS, STANDARDS, AND TRAINING

The qualifications for police officers in Tennessee are set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 38–

8–106, which states:

Any person employed as a full-time police officer, and any person

employed or utilized as a part-time, temporary, reserve or auxiliary

police officer or as a special deputy, shall:

(1) Be at least eighteen (18) years of age;

(2) Be a citizen of the United States, or a permanent legal resident

of the United States who is an honorably discharged veteran of

the United States armed forces pursuant to § 38-8-105(d);

(3) Be a high school graduate or possess a high school equivalency

credential approved by the state board of education;

(4) Not have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or entered a plea

of nolo contendere to any felony charge or to any violation of

any federal or state laws or city ordinances relating to force,

1 Hickman County did not assert the “direct threat” affirmative defense, see 42 U.S.C.A. § 12113(b),

or any other affirmative defenses as to liability.

violence, theft, dishonesty, gambling, liquor, controlled

substances or controlled substance analogues;

(5) Not have been released or discharged under any other than

honorable discharge from any of the armed forces of the United

States;

(6) Have the person's fingerprints on file with the Tennessee bureau

of investigation;

(7) Have passed a physical examination by a licensed physician or

a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, so long as the task is

expressly included in the written protocol developed jointly by

the supervising physician and the nurse practitioner or physician

assistant, whichever is applicable, setting forth the range of

services that may be performed by the nurse practitioner or

physician assistant;

(8) Have a good moral character as determined by a thorough

investigation conducted by the employing agency; and

(9) Have been certified by a Tennessee licensed health care provider

qualified in the psychiatric or psychological field as being free

from any impairment, as set forth in the current edition of the

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)

of the American Psychiatric Association at the time of the

examination, that would, in the professional judgment of the

examiner, affect the applicant's ability to perform an essential

function of the job, with or without a reasonable

accommodation.

The Tennessee Legislature established the POST Commission (referred to herein as the

“POST Commission” or the “Commission”), see Tenn. Code Ann. § 38-8-102, “to develop, plan,

and implement law enforcement training programs for local law enforcement officers in Tennessee,

establish uniform standards for the employment and training of police officers, and to establish

minimum standards and curriculum requirements for courses of study for training police officers.”

Carter v. McWherter, 859 S.W.2d 343, 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). Police officers in Tennessee are

required to be certified by the POST Commission. See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs., ch. 1110–2–.01(1)

(“All persons, who are employed as full-time law enforcement officers on or after July 1, 1982,

shall comply with and maintain the pre-employment standards and meet the Basic Law

Enforcement Training requirements before being certified as law enforcement officers.”).

POST certification means “the designation conferred by the Commission on a person who

has successfully completed a minimum, advanced, or specialized course of study and instruction

required for a law enforcement officer in the State of Tennessee, and who meets all applicable

requirements of T.C.A. §§ 38-8-106 and 38-8-107, and Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1110-02 and 1110-

03.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1110-01-.01(6); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 38-8-107(a) (“The

commission shall issue a certificate of compliance to any person who meets the qualifications for

employment and satisfactorily completes an approved recruit training program.”). An “Application

for Certification” must be submitted to the POST Commission “not later than the end of the first

day on which [the individual's] employment as a law enforcement officer commences.” Wright v.

Tennessee Peace Officer Standards & Training Comm'n, 277 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008)

(quoting Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs., ch. 1110–5–.01(1)).

The POST Commission is vested with authority to “establish criteria for determining

whether to grant an exception to or waive the qualifications of minimum standards as provided in

§ 38–8–106[.]” Id. at 2–3. “If a waiver is granted, then a police department may employ an officer

who would otherwise be in violation of § 38–8–106.” Id. The Commission has discretion to grant

a waiver of pre-employment requirements under the following circumstances:

(a) No person in need of a waiver under this section may be

employed as a law enforcement officer unless a request for a

waiver has been submitted to the Commission. The waiver

request will be scheduled to be considered at a Commission

meeting as soon as reasonably practicable. Any person who

shall appoint any applicant, who, to the knowledge of the

appointee, fails to meet the minimum standards required by the

Commission, and any person who signs the warrant or check for

the payment of the salary of any person who, to the knowledge

of the signer, fails to meet the qualifications as a law

enforcement officer required by the Commission, commits a

Class A misdemeanor, and upon conviction will be subject to a

fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) pursuant to

T.C.A. § 38-8-105.

(b) Military History. The Commission may waive pre-employment

requirements relating to the military history on an individual

basis and depending on the circumstances.

1. Waivers may be granted from pre-employment requirements

for the following separations from military service:

i. Entry Level Separation;

ii. General Discharge under Honorable Conditions; or

iii. Uncharacterized Discharge.

2. Waivers will not be granted from pre-employment

requirements for the following separation from military

service:

i. Dishonorable Discharge;

ii. Bad Conduct Discharge; or

iii. Other Than Honorable Discharge.

(c) Criminal Activity. The Commission may waive pre-

employment requirements relating to criminal activity on an

individual basis and depending on the circumstances.

1. The Commission may waive pre-employment requirements

for a person who has been convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or

entered a plea of nolo contendere to any felony charge of any

violation of federal or state laws or city ordinances relating

to force, violence (excluding domestic violence), theft,

dishonesty, gambling, liquor and other alcoholic beverages,

or controlled substances when the offense was classified as

a misdemeanor.

2. No waiver will be granted while the individual is under the

jurisdiction of the court or considered on probation, whether

supervised or unsupervised. For driving under the influence

violations, the individual must have met all the requirements

of the Tennessee Department of Safety and received a

restoration of his/her permanent driving privileges under the

laws of the State of Tennessee before a waiver may be

considered.

3. No waiver will be granted for a narcotics violation that could

result in a felony charge, a conviction for domestic violence,

or any offense set forth in 18 U.S.C § 922(g) that would

make the possession of a firearm or weapon a prohibited act.

4. The agency sponsoring or considering employing the

affected individual seeking employment or certification

shall present a written request for waiver for any charges and

provide a copy of the final court disposition of the case to

the Commission prior to placing any applicant in a position

of employment.

5. Some of the factors the Commission will consider when

determining whether to grant a waiver are:

i. The amount of time since the offense;

ii. The amount of time since completion of the sentence;

iii. The type, circumstances, and severity of the offense;

iv. The applicant's activities since the offense; and

v. The applicant's ability to carry a firearm pursuant to

federal and state law.

(d) Mental Impairment. A waiver will not be granted from pre-

employment requirements for a mental impairment that would

affect the person's ability to perform an essential function of the

job, with or without a reasonable accommodation.

(e) Education. A waiver will not be granted from pre-employment

requirements relating to minimum education requirements.

(f) Previous decertification or voluntary surrender of certification

as a law enforcement officer. The Commission may waive pre-

employment requirements relating to previous decertification or

voluntary surrender of certification as a law enforcement officer

on an individual basis.

1. Some of the factors the Commission will consider when

determining whether to grant a waiver are:

i. The circumstances of the previous decertification or

voluntary surrender of certification as a law

enforcement officer;

ii. The amount of time since the previous decertification

or voluntary surrender of certification as a law

enforcement officer;

iii. The applicant's activities since the offense; and

iv. The applicant's ability to carry a firearm pursuant to

federal and state law.

Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1110-09-.04.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Congress enacted the [ADA] with the noble purpose of ‘provid[ing] a clear and

comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with

disabilities.’” Tucker v. Tennessee, 539 F.3d 526, 536 (6th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds

by Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)).

To that end, the ADA incorporates the remedial provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964. See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). “Upon a finding of invidious discrimination, a district court has

wide discretion to impose equitable remedies in order to ‘fashion the most complete relief possible’

designed to ‘make the victims of unlawful discrimination whole.’” Fuhr v. Sch. Dist. of City of

Hazel Park, 364 F.3d 753, 760 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Shore v. Federal Express Corp., 42 F.3d

373, 377 (6th Cir. 1994) and Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421 (1975)).

“A victim of discrimination ‘is to be placed, as near as may be, in the situation he would

have occupied if the wrong had not been committed.’” United States v. City of Warren, Mich., 138

F.3d 1083, 1097 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Albemarle, 422 U.S. at 418–19); Ford Motor Co. v. E. E.

O. C., 458 U.S. 219, 230 (1982) (“… the victims of job discrimination want jobs, not lawsuits.”).

In the Sixth Circuit, “victims of discrimination are presumptively entitled to instatement or

reinstatement” and “reinstatement is the preferred equitable remedy in cases where discrimination

has been proved.” Fuhr, 364 F.3d at 761 (internal citations omitted). “The availability of

reinstatement is entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court.” McGruder v. Metro. Gov't

of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Tennessee, 99 F.4th 336, 343-44 (6th Cir. 2024) (citations and

internal quotations omitted).

IV. ANALYSIS

As noted above, Mr. Beard is presumptively entitled to reinstatement. And here, the Court

finds that reinstatement is necessary to place Mr. Beard in, as near as may be, the situation he

would have occupied if Hickman County had not unlawfully terminated his employment. See

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418-21 (1975). Hickman County’s opposition to

Mr. Beard’s reinstatement is not persuasive. First, Hickman County asserts that Mr. Beard is “not

physically capable of performing the essential functions of a patrol deputy/sergeant.” (Doc. No.

109 at 1). This argument fails as the jury necessarily rejected Hickman County’s position on this

key issue of fact – Mr. Beard’s physical abilities to handle the job – by returning a verdict in Mr.

Beard’s favor on his ADA discriminatory discharge claim. (See Verdict Form, Doc. No. 105).

Next, Hickman County asserts that Mr. Beard “is likely unable to obtain the necessary POST

certification,” (see Doc. No. 109 at 1), “due to his inability to pass the required physical

examination[.]” (Id. at 5). Mr. Beard also has concerns that the POST Commission will not approve

a pre-employment requirement waiver for him. (See Doc. No. 124).

Here, where discriminatory discharge and other civil rights violations have been proved,

the Court finds that reinstatement is necessary to be place Mr. Beard in as near as possible the

situation he would have occupied if Hickman County had not wronged him. Accordingly, the

Court AWARDS Mr. Beard the remedy of REINSTATEMENT backdated to June 24, 2021, the

date of his unlawful termination. As part of Mr. Beard’s reinstatement, Hickman County SHALL

expunge Mr. Beard’s unlawful termination from its records, including Mr. Beard’s employment

file and all related documents. On or before May 1, 2025, Hickman County SHALL file under

seal a copy of Mr. Beard’s initial POST certification and corresponding documents, including the

application it previously submitted on Mr. Beard’s behalf. By the same date, Hickman County

shall file a notice confirming that is has expunged Mr. Beard’s unlawful termination from its

records, including Mr. Beard’s employment file and all related documents.

The parties are advised that Mr. Beard’s reinstatement is not comparable to re-hiring a

former employee or hiring a new applicant; Mr. Beard is not re-applying for any position nor is he

a potential job applicant. Rather, Mr. Beard is being reinstated as of the date of his unlawful

termination so that he will be put back in the employment situation he would have occupied if

Hickman County had not unlawfully terminated his employment in violation of his civil rights.

See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418-21 (1975).

The Court is inclined to reinstate Mr. Beard to either: (1) his prior road deputy shift sergeant

position, which requires POST certification; or (2) the jail tower operator position, which does not

require POST certification. This issue is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT, pending Hickman

County’s compliance with the present Order.

V. CONCLUSION

The Court AWARDS Mr. Beard the equitable remedy of REINSTATEMENT to Hickman

County’s Sheriff’s Department. The Court will address the details of his reinstatement by separate

Order, pending Hickman County’s compliance with this Order.

It is so ORDERED.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE