Jim Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State University
451 S.W.3d 375
| Tenn. | 2014Background
- Ferguson, a Japanese-American MTSU employee, alleged retaliation by his supervisor Byrd after he filed discrimination lawsuits.
- Following his 1999–2003 period of medically restricted work, Byrd repeatedly assigned him tasks beyond his restrictions, including overhead work.
- Ferguson filed an EEOC complaint in late 2002 and a discrimination lawsuit in March 2003; after service of the suit, Byrd allegedly intensified his onerous duties.
- He suffered a series of injuries and ultimately retired in 2004; he asserted retaliation under Title VII and the THRA.
- A jury awarded three million dollars in compensatory damages for retaliation; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding no proof Byrd knew of protected activity when increasing duties.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court reinstated the jury verdict, holding there was material evidence Byrd knew of Ferguson’s protected activity prior to adverse actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of protected activity | Ferguson contends Byrd knew of his lawsuit when increasing duties. | MTSU argues no direct evidence Byrd knew of protected activity at the time. | Evidence supports Byrd’s knowledge inference. |
| Temporal proximity sufficiency | Close timing between service of lawsuit and workload increase supports knowledge inference. | Proximity alone is insufficient to prove knowledge. | Temporal proximity plus other evidence supports knowledge. |
| Credibility of witnesses | Jury could credit Ferguson and disbelieve Byrd’s claimed lack of knowledge. | Byrd’s credibility undermines Ferguson’s claims. | Jury credibility determinations were for the jury; not reweighed on appeal. |
| Scope of knowledge standard | Knowledge can be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence and need not be direct memory. | Burden requires clear direct knowledge of protected activity. | Knowledge can be inferred from circumstantial evidence; direct memory not required. |
| Damages review | Damages properly awarded based on retaliation finding. | Damages excess and warrant remittitur/new trial. | Remand for damages review; not prejudice the verdict itself. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 555 U.S. 271 (U.S. 2009) (opposition clause protects employees who oppose unlawful practices)
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1997) (retaliation aims to ensure access to remedial mechanisms)
- White v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation doctrine and deterrence rationale)
- Sykes v. Chattanooga Hous. Auth., 343 S.W.3d 18 (Tenn. 2011) (four-prong retaliation test for THRA claims; knowledge prong emphasized)
- Mulhall v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2002) (knowledge of protected activity may be shown by circumstantial evidence)
- Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., 320 S.W.3d 777 (Tenn. 2010) (abrogation/clarifications affecting retaliation standards)
- Barnes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 48 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2000) (jury credibility and appellate deference to factual findings)