Dr. William P. Harman v. University of Tennessee
353 S.W.3d 734
Tenn.2011Background
- Harman, a UT Chattanooga professor, was hired in Fall 2000 as department head of Philosophy and Religion.
- He received favorable evaluations as department head and did not have unsatisfactory ratings.
- As department head, Harman evaluated a junior faculty member, Welsh, for tenure and identified issues including absences, an affair with a student, and alleged falsifications.
- Dean Burhenn instructed Harman to remove negative information from Welsh’s evaluation; Harman refused to conceal misconduct.
- After Harman refused to resign or remain silent about Welsh’s misconduct, he was informed he would be terminated as Department Head at the end of the academic year but continued employed as a professor.
- Harman’s complaint alleges a TPPA claim based on a termination; the University moved for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court dismissed the TPPA claim; the appellate court affirmed; the central issue is whether the TPPA covers termination vs. demotion or non-termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does TPPA require a complete severance to trigger a claim? | Harman says termination occurred as Department Head; TPPA covers discharge/termination. | TPPA requires complete severance (discharge/termination); Harman remained employed as a professor after demotion. | TPPA requires discharge/termination; removal as department head without complete severance is not termination. |
| Was Harman terminated or merely demoted, for purposes of TPPA? | Termination occurred when Harman was removed as department head; admitted by UT in filings. | Removal as department head is a demotion, not a termination under TPPA. | The majority treats it as not a termination; the dismissal was proper under TPPA. |
| Are the pleadings sufficient to state a TPPA claim given the alleged facts? | Legislative history shows focus on total severance rather than lesser actions like demotion. | Statutory language controls; termination/ discharge mean complete severance. | Legislative history supports interpretation that TPPA requires termination; demotion not actionable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sykes v. Chattanooga Hous. Auth., 343 S.W.3d 18 (Tenn.2011) (sets TPPA elements including discharge/termination and causal link)
- Boyd v. Edwards & Assoc., 309 S.W.3d 470 (Tenn.Ct.App.2009) (discusses elements of TPPA claim)
- Lanier v. Rains, 229 S.W.3d 656 (Tenn.2007) (treatment of pleading standards and de novo review)
- Timmins v. Lindsey, 310 S.W.3d 834 (Tenn.Ct.App.2009) (review standard for 12.02/12.03 motions; deference to pleadings)
- Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn.2011) (pleadings, dismissal standards for failure to state a claim)
- Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852 (Tenn.2002) (articulates standard for legal sufficiency on motions to dismiss)