Porsha Perkins v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
380 S.W.3d 73
| Tenn. | 2012Background
- Perkins, an African-American woman over 40, was terminated from MAC, a Metro agency, in 2006 following a safety investigation.
- She had prior EEOC/THRC complaints (2004) and a 2005 lawsuit alleging age/race discrimination and retaliation.
- After termination, Perkins appealed to the Metro Civil Service Commission; a settlement in 2007 provided backpay and other consideration and required her not to seek future MAC employment.
- The 2007 Settlement explicitly excludes Perkins’ EEOC complaint from the agreement and requires expungement of certain records, among other terms.
- Perkins filed a 2008 circuit court action alleging Title VII retaliation and ADEA retaliation based on the termination; Metro sought summary judgment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, Court of Appeals affirmed, and this Court reversed, holding that settlement did not negate the adverse-action element for retaliation claims and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement forecloses an adverse-action claim | Perkins argues settlement does not erase the termination as an adverse action | Metro contends settlement resembled a voluntary resignation, eliminating adverse action | Settlement does not preclude adverse action; termination remained an adverse action for retaliation claims |
| What standard governs whether an action is materially adverse | Burlington Northern standard should apply to evaluate material adversity | Lower courts’ pre-Burlington standard or distinguishable authorities should apply | Burlington Northern objective standard governs material adversity in retaliation claims |
| How to interpret settlement contract as to retaliation claims | Settlement’s overall language does not negate Title VII/ADEA claims | Settlement intended to resolve all related disputes, potentially barring retaliation claims | Contract read as a whole shows intent to exclude Title VII/ADEA claims; does not erase adverse-action element for retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Northern S.F. Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (adverse action must be material and deter complainants; backpay does not erase material injury)
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1997) (retaliation aims to protect access to remedial mechanisms)
- Spengler v. Worthington Cylinders, 615 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2010) (adverse-action framework for ADEA retaliation claims)
- Randolph v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Serv., 453 F.3d 724 (6th Cir. 2006) (four-element framework for retaliation claims)
- Fox v. Eagle Distrib. Co., 510 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2007) (reiterates adverse-action framework for retaliation)
- Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., 320 S.W.3d 777 (Tenn. 2010) (Tennessee adoption of related summary-judgment standards post-Gossett)
- Allen v. McPhee, 240 S.W.3d 803 (Tenn. 2007) (preceded Gossett; referenced in context of retaliation standards)