Teresa McCain v. Saint Thomas Medical Partners, M2020-00880-COA-R3-CV

McCain, an LPN, alleges Dr. May sexually harassed her from Nov. 2015–Apr./May 2016 (unwanted hugging/touching; attempted kiss; last touching May 6, 2016).
She complained to her supervisor on April 15, 2016; alleges subsequent verbal abuse and other retaliatory acts by coworkers/supervisor.
McCain took FMLA leave June 26–Sept. 6, 2016; on returning Sept. 6 she was reassigned to a different physician/floor with no change in title, pay, or benefits but with different (and, she says, less prestigious) duties; personal effects moved; she experienced a panic attack that day.
Her doctor ordered leave through Sept. 12; on Sept. 12, 2016, McCain emailed her resignation asserting she was resigning "under duress" due to a hostile environment and never returned.
McCain filed suit Sept. 12, 2017 alleging THRA hostile work environment, retaliation, constructive discharge, IIED, NIED; trial court dismissed pre-Sept. 6, 2016 claims as time-barred, later granted summary judgment dismissing constructive discharge/retaliation for failure to show an adverse action; McCain appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether THRA hostile-work-environment/retaliation claims for events on or before Sept. 6, 2016 were wrongly dismissed as time-barred (continuing-violation)	McCain: the hostile environment and retaliation were ongoing and the reassignment remained in effect; her constructive discharge on Sept. 12 makes the entire claim timely under the continuing-violation doctrine.	Saint Thomas: the relevant discriminatory acts (including reassignment) were discrete and ceased on Sept. 6; the one-year THRA limitations period therefore ran from that date and McCain’s suit is untimely.	Court: Affirmed — reassignment is a discrete act that ceased on Sept. 6; no discriminatory act occurred within the limitations period to invoke continuing-violation.
Whether summary judgment on retaliation and constructive discharge was erroneous	McCain: her reassignment and resulting conditions foreseeably forced resignation; constructive discharge and retaliation claims survive.	Saint Thomas: reassignment caused no loss in title/pay/benefits and was not intolerable; without a timely underlying THRA violation there is no constructive-discharge claim.	Court: Affirmed — no materially adverse action or intolerable conditions shown; constructive discharge requires a viable underlying THRA claim, which was time-barred.

Booker v. The Boeing Co., 188 S.W.3d 639 (Tenn. 2006) (adopts continuing-violation framework for THRA; distinguishes discrete acts from ongoing practices)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (hostile-environment claims treated as a single practice; discrete acts accrue when they occur)
Spicer v. Beaman Bottling Co., 937 S.W.2d 884 (Tenn. 1996) (earlier discussion of continuing-violation concept in Tennessee employment law)
Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26 (Tenn. 1996) (elements and severity/pervasiveness standard for hostile-work-environment claims)
Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 227 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (transfer without loss of pay/title/benefits generally not a constructive discharge)
Lemon v. Williamson Cty. Sch., 618 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2021) (constructive discharge is not an independent cause of action; requires viable underlying claim)