Mitch Goree v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 828
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Goree and Wherry, both black UPS employees, sue for THRA racial discrimination and retaliation based on a failed promotion (Goree) and a demotion (Wherry).
- Goree expected a full-time promotion to business manager at Walnut Grove in 2010; Riley, a white male, was promoted instead, prompting Goree’s stress leave and later evidence of competing promotions.
- Wherry, initially division manager, was demoted to business manager in 2011 after investigations into a King Day incident and a delayed response to racial-harassment complaints; the demotion followed both internal discipline and management decisions.
- A district president allegedly stated, during an internal discussion, that UPS does not promote guys with litigation, which the plaintiffs argue constitutes direct retaliation evidence.
- The jury found for Goree and Wherry on both THRA discrimination and retaliation claims; the trial court remitted the awards, and the plaintiffs accepted remittitur under protest, leading to UPS’s appeal.
- The Court of Appeals affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands, addressing standards for but-for causation in THRA retaliation, sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, and damages remittitur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Goree proved a prima facie failure-to-promote case and whether UPS’s reasons were pretextual | Goree showed prima facie case and pretext through Riley’s transfer and conflicting evidence on promotion. | No adverse action tied to race; Riley’s transfer was a legitimate business decision with no discriminatory motive. | No directed-verdict; substantial evidence supports discrimination finding. |
| Whether Wherry’s demotion was motivated by race or protected activity | Wherry faced retaliation for opposing discrimination and for Goree’s promotion, with comparators lacking. | Wherry’s demotion was for delay in handling King Day incident; no causal link to protected activity established. | Wherry’s racial-discrimination claim reversed; no THRA retaliation finding supported. |
| Whether the trial court erred by not applying but-for causation to THRA retaliation per Nassar | THRA retaliation must be but-for; direct evidence supports but-for causation. | Nassar framework applies; but-for causation required for retaliation. | THRA retaliation requires but-for causation; court adopts but-for standard. |
| Whether jury instructions properly conveyed but-for/causal standard under THRA | Instructions allowed a determining-factor framework equivalent to but-for. | Instructions were correct under THRA and did not mislead. | Instructions deemed substantially accurate; no reversible error. |
| Whether remittitur of damages was proper for Goree’s back pay and humiliation | Remittitur should not reduce future-pay components and should sustain jury’s full damages. | Remittitur appropriate to fit reasonable range; front-pay considerations allowed. | Remittitur reversed in part; back pay reinstated; humiliation damages reduced rather than fully sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext plus prima facie case can sustain liability; but-for standard discussed)
- Wilson v. Rubin, 104 S.W.3d 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (recognizes direct and circumstantial proof in discrimination)
- Frame v. Davidson Transit Org., 194 S.W.3d 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (prima facie and pretext analysis in THRA retaliation context)
- Versa v. Policy Studies, Inc., 45 S.W.3d 575 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (emphasizes evaluating pretext with inconsistencies in employer's rationale)
- Sykes v. Chattanooga Housing Authority, 343 S.W.3d 18 (Tenn. 2011) (outlines retaliation prima facie framework and causation considerations)
- Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State Univ., 451 S.W.3d 375 (Tenn. 2014) (THRA retaliation standard aligns with Title VII when interpreting causation)
- Gooch v. City of Pulaski, 2007 WL 969398 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (discusses opposition activity and protected status (cited for THRA context))
- Nassar, 570 U.S. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (but-for causation standard for retaliation claims under Title VII)