Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Timmy Sykes and Curtis Greene were employed as criminal investigators by the Chattanooga Housing Authority (CHA) when they expressed their concerns regarding illegal searches and seizures and racial profiling by the CHA chief and assistant chief. Subsequently, CHA terminated the employment of both Sykes and Greene, alleging sexual harassment on the part of Sykes and violations of the CHA cell phone policy on the part of Greene. Sykes and Greene sued the CHA and the CHA chief, alleging retaliatory discharge in violation of the state Whistleblower Act and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. The court of appeals vacated summary judgment on the THRA claims and affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other respects. On appeal, the Supreme Court (1) affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the Whistleblower Act claims, finding the undisputed facts established the plaintiffs could not prove an exclusive causal relationship between the plaintiffs' whistleblowing activity and their discharge; and (2) affirmed the appellate court's ruling vacating summary judgment in defendants' favor on the THRA claims, finding there were genuine issues of disputed fact.

In 2004, Plaintiffs Dalton and Sandra Hughes sued the city of Nashville and one of its employees under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). Mr. Hughes worked for the local fire department. He alleged that Defendant Frank Archey negligently revved the engine to a front-end loader. The loader dropped its bucket to the pavement and made a loud, scraping noise. Mr. Hughes jumped awkwardly over some guardrail to get out of the way of the loader. Mr. Hughes injured both shoulders and both knees in the fall, and ultimately had rotator-cuff surgery and a double knee replacement. Mr. Hughes incurred significant medical bills and missed work. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Mr. Hughes, and the city appealed, arguing that Mr. Archey acted outside the scope of his employment. Furthermore, the city characterized Mr. Archey's act as an "intentional tort", which absolved it from liability under the GTLA. The Supreme Court found that although Mr. Archey's conduct fell within the scope of his employment, his operation of the equipment constituted an intentional tort. The city could not be held liable under the GTLA. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court to enter a judgment against Mr. Archey.