Patricia Bazemore v. Performance Food Group, Inc.
478 S.W.3d 628
Tenn. Ct. App.2015Background
- Bazemore sues Performance Food Group (PFG) and Pearson for THRA harassment and related claims.
- Harassment alleged occurred in PFG Chattanooga office in Sept. and Oct. 2012; Bazemore secretly recorded incidents.
- PFG investigated in Oct. 2012; Pearson given a final written warning and barred from one-on-one contact; Bazemore withheld audio recordings.
- Office access policy limiting hours implemented Nov. 30, 2012; Bazemore encountered Pearson at office despite prior assurances.
- Bazemore resigned Jan. 15, 2013; she booked a new job with ADI in January 2013 and filed suit Sept. 5, 2013 (amended Aug. 4, 2014); trial court granted summary judgment in favor of PFG.
- Appeal reviewed under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-6-101; court affirmatively upheld summary judgment for PFG.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bazemore proved a hostile work environment under THRA. | Bazemore asserts ongoing harassment created an abusive environment. | PFG argues no evidence of a hostile environment; actions were reasonable. | No genuine hostile environment; PFG acted reasonably. |
| Whether Bazemore established constructive discharge. | Harassment rendered environment intolerable, forcing resignation. | Only one brief encounter; not intolerable; PFG policy mitigated harm. | No constructive discharge; environment not intolerable. |
| Whether Bazemore proved intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. | Harassment caused serious emotional distress; intent or negligence shown. | No infliction with intent or severe emotional injury; no expert proof. | Claims of IIED and NIED barred on record. |
| Whether Bazemore established negligent retention/supervision of employees. | PFG knew or should have known Pearson was unfit. | Pearson vetted; policy and training; Bazemore concealed audio evidence. | Insufficient evidence of negligent retention/supervision. |
| Whether Bazemore proved retaliation by PFG for filing complaint. | Actions (order deadlines, evaluations, office hours) were retaliatory. | Policies applied to all Chattanooga employees; no targeted retaliation. | No substantial evidence of retaliation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Fla. Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26 (Tenn. 1996) (establishes elements of hostile work environment and constructive discharge in Tennessee THRA cases)
- Rabidue v. Osceola Ref. Co., a Div. of Texas-American Petrochemicals, Inc., 805 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1986) (guides totality-of-the-circumstances test for hostile environment)
- Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (national standard for hostile environment considerations)
- Akers v. Prime Succession of Tenn., Inc., 387 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn. 2012) (defines elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Tennessee)
- Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437 (Tenn. 1996) (negligent infliction of emotional distress requires element proof and expert support)