Kighwaunda M. YARDLEY v. HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING SYSTEMS, LLC
2015 Tenn. LEXIS 630
| Tenn. | 2015Background
- Yardley was a long‑time housekeeping aide at University Medical Center who was injured on the job in 2010 and received workers’ compensation and light‑duty work.
- The hospital contracted with Hospital Housekeeping Systems (the Company) effective July 1, 2012; the Company agreed to interview and could hire existing housekeeping staff.
- Yardley had not been hired after the transition; when she sought to return after medical release, Company management declined to hire her because she was on workers’ compensation and might file a claim.
- Yardley sued in federal court; the Middle District certified a question to the Tennessee Supreme Court under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 23: whether a job applicant can bring a cause of action under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act for retaliatory failure to hire, and if so, what causation standard applies.
- Tennessee Supreme Court considered statutory text, employment‑at‑will doctrine, public‑policy retaliatory discharge law, and related authorities, and treated the case as one of first impression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a job applicant may sue a prospective employer under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act for refusal to hire because the applicant filed or may file a workers’ compensation claim | Yardley: public policy and retaliatory‑discharge analogies justify recognizing a failure‑to‑hire cause of action to prevent chilling of claims and to effectuate the Act (and the Second Injury Fund’s purpose) | Company: no employer‑employee relationship existed; Act imposes obligations only in employer‑employee context; courts should not create an exception to at‑will hiring decisions | The Court held no cause of action exists under the Act for retaliatory failure to hire; pretermitted the causation standard question |
Key Cases Cited
- Clanton v. Cain‑Sloan Co., 677 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn. 1984) (recognizes retaliatory‑discharge bar to firing an employee for filing workers’ compensation claim)
- Stratton v. United Inter‑Mountain Tel. Co., 695 S.W.2d 947 (Tenn. 1985) (liability under Workers’ Compensation Act rests on employer‑employee relationship)
- Mason v. Seaton, 942 S.W.2d 470 (Tenn. 1997) (explains employment‑at‑will as fundamental rule and employer freedom in hiring/firing)
- Anderson v. Standard Register Co., 857 S.W.2d 555 (Tenn. 1993) (elements of common‑law workers’ compensation retaliatory‑discharge claim)
- Seals v. H & F, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 237 (Tenn. 2009) (procedural guidance for answering certified questions of law)
- Renteria‑Villegas v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 382 S.W.3d 318 (Tenn. 2012) (discusses state courts’ authority to answer certified questions)
- Haley v. Univ. of Tenn.‑Knoxville, 188 S.W.3d 518 (Tenn. 2006) (endorses answering federal certified questions to promote comity and efficiency)