Brewer v. United Wisconsin Insurance
972 F. Supp. 2d 1044
M.D. Tenn.2013Background
- Brewer interviewed for and received a conditional written offer (contingent on a background check) for a Loss Control Consultant position with United Heartland in August 2012.
- Brewer signed the offer and the background-check authorization, disclosing her age on the latter; she had previously said she traveled extensively in her then-current job and was told the new job likewise required significant travel.
- United Heartland rescinded the offer before Brewer began work, citing concerns about her commitment and ability to meet travel requirements; Brewer alleges the true reason was age discrimination.
- Brewer sued, including a state-law claim under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-102 (False and Deceptive Representation of Employment).
- United Heartland moved to dismiss that Tenn. Code claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the court granted the motion and dismissed the § 50-1-102 claim, denying leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brewer alleged a type of misrepresentation covered by Tenn. Code § 50-1-102 (four categories: kind/character of work; amount/character of compensation; sanitary/other conditions; existence of strike/trouble) | Brewer says she was induced by representations about the Loss Control Consultant position and was denied the kind/character of work promised (i.e., the job itself) | United Heartland says Brewer only alleges it rescinded an offer (and that its explanation was pretext for age discrimination), not a misrepresentation about one of the statute’s four covered categories | Court: Dismissed — § 50-1-102 covers misrepresentations about actual employment conditions; Brewer never began work so she cannot plead one of the four statutorily specified misrepresentations; claim fails as a matter of law |
| Whether the statute’s "brought into this state"/"go from one place to another in this state" movement requirement is satisfied | Brewer contends the phrase can include a change in place of employment within the state, not only a change of residence | United Heartland contends the statute requires geographic relocation into or within Tennessee | Court: Not reached — court disposed of the case on the first ground and declined to address the movement requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a claim that is plausible on its face)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard explained; pleading requires more than mere possibility)
- Gazette v. City of Pontiac, 41 F.3d 1061 (6th Cir. 1994) (complaint must be construed liberally and factual allegations accepted as true for Rule 12(b)(6) review)