Carla Suzanne Jackson v. City of Cleveland
E2015-01279-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2016Background
- Carla Jackson worked for the City of Cleveland Police Dept. since 1990 and was terminated on September 12, 2011.
- Jackson filed an EEOC charge in Oct 2010, then sued in federal court on Jan 24, 2012 asserting federal and state claims; the federal court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on Aug 13, 2013 for lack of supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.
- Jackson filed essentially the same state-law suit (THRA claims and related torts) in Bradley County on Aug 12, 2014.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the one-year THRA statute of limitations had run; Defendant relied on accrual at termination (Sept 12, 2011) and tolling principles under 28 U.S.C. §1367(d).
- Jackson argued the continuing violation doctrine (linking pre-termination acts to a post-termination TBI interview on Jan 18, 2012) and §1367(d) tolling made her state filing timely.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Jackson’s claims accrued no later than Sept 12, 2011 and were time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual date for THRA/discrimination claim (termination) | Jackson: claims did not accrue until Jan 18, 2012 (continuing violation linked to TBI interview) | City: discriminatory act was the discrete termination on Sept 12, 2011, so limitations began then | Held: Termination is a discrete act; accrual no later than Sept 12, 2011; claim time-barred |
| Applicability of continuing violation doctrine to pre-termination acts + post-termination TBI investigation | Jackson: pre-termination conduct and the TBI interview constitute a continuing violation ending Jan 2012 | City: request for investigation was an isolated, discrete act; TBI investigation was independent consequence | Held: Request for investigation is discrete; continuing-violation doctrine does not link Dept.’s conduct to the TBI investigation |
| Tolling under 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) (effect of federal action) | Jackson: §1367(d) tolled limitations while federal suit pending and for 30 days after, making state filing timely | City: Even with tolling under the suspension approach, Jackson still missed the limitations period if accrual was Sept 12, 2011 | Held: Court assumed the suspension approach (most generous) but concluded Jackson still failed to file within the tolled/remaining period; claims time-barred |
| Related tort claims (emotional distress, malicious harassment) and amendment requests | Jackson: related torts flow from same conduct; possible new discoverable evidence justifies denial of summary judgment | City: Torts are time-barred like statutory claims; malicious harassment not pleaded under required protected categories | Held: Emotional distress claims time-barred; malicious harassment fails both on limitations and because THRA malicious harassment does not include sex-motivation theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Booker v. The Boeing Co., 188 S.W.3d 639 (Tenn. 2006) (continuing-violation analysis; discrete acts vs. ongoing practice)
- Spicer v. Beaman Bottling Co., 937 S.W.2d 884 (Tenn. 1996) (factors for distinguishing discrete acts from continuing violations)
- Weber v. Moses, 938 S.W.2d 387 (Tenn. 1996) (termination accrual; notice of termination)
- Sneed v. City of Red Bank, Tenn., 459 S.W.3d 17 (Tenn. 2014) (THRA and interaction with governmental immunity and savings statutes)
- Ferguson v. Middle Tenn. State Univ., 451 S.W.3d 375 (Tenn. 2014) (elements of a THRA retaliation claim)
- Jinks v. Richland Cnty., S.C., 538 U.S. 456 (U.S. 2003) (federal tolling principles for state-law claims when federal courts exercise supplemental jurisdiction)