Jerry L. Lawrence v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority
E2016-2169-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- In April 2011 Erlanger Health Systems outsourced its Security Services Department (SSD) to Walden Security and laid off the more-than-20-member, POST‑certified police force; all SSD employees (including the seven appellants) were terminated and offered severance and opportunities to apply to Walden.
- Management documents and testimony show outsourcing discussions dating to 2008–2010, concerns about staffing/management of the SSD, and a 2010 SAI security review that actually recommended retaining and expanding the internal police force.
- Appellant Patton (the former SSD supervisor) filed a race claim; six other appellants filed age-discrimination claims (two accepted severance releases). Four appellants (Lawrence, Holliday, Capetz, Avans) asserted retaliatory discharge for filing unpaid wage claims with the Tennessee Department of Labor after termination.
- Erlanger moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs could not establish prima facie discrimination or retaliation (notably, no one was replaced by younger/non‑minority workers and several claims were time-barred or released).
- The trial court granted summary judgment: releases barred two plaintiffs; retaliation claims failed because wage complaints were filed after termination; remaining discrimination claims failed because plaintiffs could not show replacement or disparate treatment as required under McDonnell‑Douglas burden‑shifting.
- Plaintiffs relied on Patton’s affidavit and interrogatory answers to allege pretext and factual disputes; the court found those disputes immaterial to the legal deficiencies in plaintiffs’ prima facie cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patton’s race‑discrimination claim survives summary judgment | Patton argues affidavit shows pretext and discriminatory motive (treated differently because of race) | Erlanger argues no prima facie proof because Patton was not replaced nor treated differently—all officers were terminated | Affirmed: summary judgment for Erlanger; no prima facie case (no replacement/differential treatment) |
| Whether officers’ age‑discrimination claims survive, including for those who signed releases | Officers contend Patton affidavit and interrogatories show pretext and an intent to remove older officers | Erlanger argues no prima facie case (no replacement by younger workers); two plaintiffs signed releases barring claims | Affirmed: summary judgment; no prima facie proof (no replacement), and claims of two plaintiffs barred by releases |
| Whether retaliation claims (unpaid wage complaints) survive | Officers assert affidavit/interrogatories create factual disputes about retaliatory motive | Erlanger: wage claims were filed after termination, so cannot be cause for discharge; two others released claims | Affirmed: summary judgment; retaliation claims fail because protected acts occurred after termination or were released |
| Whether portions of Erlanger’s affidavits were inadmissible hearsay | Officers argue Gentry affidavit includes hearsay about officials telling management commissions would cease | Erlanger contends statements were offered to show effect on decision‑makers (state of mind/intent), not truth of assertions | Affirmed: hearsay objection does not change disposition; contested statements admissible to show effect on listeners and did not determine outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Rye v. Women's Care Ctr., 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (Tennessee standard for summary judgment and burden of production when moving party lacks trial burden)
- Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., 320 S.W.3d 777 (Tenn. 2010) (discussed as prior Tennessee treatment of McDonnell‑Douglas framework)
- Pierson v. Quad/Graphics Printing Corp., 749 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2014) (explains replacement analysis and higher proof standard in reduction‑in‑force cases)
- Barnes v. GenCorp, 896 F.2d 1457 (6th Cir. 1990) (RIF and replacement analysis)
- Talley v. Bravo Pitino Restaurant, Ltd., 61 F.3d 1241 (6th Cir. 1995) (outlines indirect proof elements for discrimination claims)