Linda Diane Cobb v. State of Tennessee, M2014-01755-COA-R3-CV

Cobb, a Caucasian Public Health Office Assistant, began working for Maury County Health Department in Jan 2009 under supervisor Constance Baker.
Cobb and Baker are both Caucasian; Baker supervised seven PHOAs, with Cobb alleging preferential treatment for two African-American/Latina coworkers, Martin and Hernandez.
Cobb alleged violations of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) alleging race discrimination and a hostile work environment; she claimed Martin and Hernandez were treated better and that she was harassed as a result.
Cobb filed suit in March 2011; she described discriminatory practices and racially tinged “racial statements” but never alleged retaliation in the amended complaint.
In March 2011 Cobb verbally complained to Maury County HR about emails from Baker; an internal investigation found no merit; Cobb later produced numerous documents in discovery, including patient records, which Cobb conceded violated HIPAA.
The County and State Defendants moved for summary judgment; Cobb’s responses included denials with limited record citations; the trial court granted summary judgment to both sets of defendants, ruling that Cobb failed to show an adverse action or a cognizable hostile environment; Cobb appealed challenging discovery timing, finality of judgment, and the merits of summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cobb’s retaliation claim was properly pleaded and considered	Cobb argues the trial court failed to address retaliation; she contends THRA requires notice of retaliation.	County/State defendants argue no retaliation claim was asserted in the amended complaint; the THRA was the basis for discrimination claims.	Retaliation claim not pleaded; judgment final and proper on other THRA claims.
Whether the court abused Rule 56.07 by denying continuance for discovery	Cobb sought a continuance or discovery to oppose summary judgment under Rule 56.07.	Court acted within discretion; lengthy time for discovery had elapsed; letter requesting discovery was insufficient.	No abuse of discretion; trial court acted within Rule 56.07.
Whether summary judgment was proper for reverse racial discrimination and hostile environment	Cobb contends there were material facts creating a hostile environment based on race and an adverse action.	Cobb admitted no adverse action and conceded harassment was not race-based; no genuine disputes supported by record.	Summary judgment affirmed; no adverse action or race-based hostile environment proven.

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 227 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (evaluating THRA discrimination retaliation elements)
Goree v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 490 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (THRA applicability and retaliation basics)
Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (burden-shifting at summary judgment under Rye; continuing viability of pre/post-Rye framework)
Barnes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 48 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2000) (defining adverse employment action and requirements for discrimination claims)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (framework for evaluating hostile environment with objective/subjective standard)
Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (standard for hostile work environment and harassment analysis)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden-shifting framework at summary judgment; pre-trial disclosure rules)
Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., 320 S.W.3d 777 (Tenn. 2010) (post-Gossett/Rye framework for THRA discrimination analysis)
Kinsler v. Berkline, LLC, 320 S.W.3d 796 (Tenn. 2010) (post-Gossett framework; summary judgment considerations in THRA cases)
Bayberry Assoc. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990) (finality standards under Rule 54.02 and appealability)