# Beard v. Hickman County Government

> District Court, M.D. Tennessee · April 25, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10852116

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** April 25, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10852116

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10852116. Public record. Not legal advice.