Charles Haynes v. Formac Stables, Inc., 463 S.W.3d 34

Charles Haynes, a horse groom employed by Formac Stables, was kicked by a horse at work, received head wounds sutured by a veterinarian at the owner’s insistence, and later complained to the owner about resulting headaches.
Haynes alleged the owner refused to allow medical treatment and threatened his job; Haynes claims he was terminated for refusing to remain silent about the illegal stitching procedure.
Haynes sued for retaliatory discharge under Tennessee common law and the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), alleging whistleblower protection.
The trial court dismissed for failure to state a claim because Haynes had only reported the misconduct to the owner—the alleged wrongdoer; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether reporting wrongdoing only to the person responsible (including owners/managers) can satisfy the reporting requirement for whistleblower claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an employee must report employer wrongdoing to someone other than the wrongdoer to qualify as a whistleblower	Haynes: reporting to the owner/manager who is also the wrongdoer should suffice; otherwise managers could evade liability and internal correction would be discouraged	Formac: reporting only to the wrongdoer does not further the public interest and thus does not meet the public-reporting requirement	Held: Employee must report to someone other than the wrongdoer; when the wrongdoer is the owner/manager, reporting to an outside entity may be required; Emerson overruled to the extent inconsistent

Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co., 677 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn. 1984) (recognized common-law retaliatory discharge exception to at-will employment)
Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714 (Tenn. 1997) (summary of Tennessee at-will employment doctrine)
Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852 (Tenn. 2002) (elements for retaliatory discharge claim)
Guy v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 79 S.W.3d 528 (Tenn. 2002) (distinction between TPPA and common law and focus on public interest in reporting)
Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., 320 S.W.3d 777 (Tenn. 2010) (whistleblower claims arise where employee refuses to remain silent about illegal/unsafe practices)
Emerson v. Oak Ridge Research, Inc., 187 S.W.3d 364 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (held reporting to an offending supervisor who also served as management could suffice; overruled here to extent inconsistent)
Collins v. AmSouth Bank, 241 S.W.3d 879 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (internal reporting may qualify but not if to the person responsible)
Lawson v. Adams, 338 S.W.3d 486 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (employee who reported only to owner responsible for unsafe conduct did not qualify as whistleblower)