349 S.W.3d 501
Tenn. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Kelly Williams, Robert Williams, and Earlynn Schubert allege THRA age discrimination after termination; Cynthia Lowery and Barbara Dadswell also file THRA claims against WTCI, with Dadswell asserting retaliatory discharge/constructive dismissal claims.
- Cases were consolidated for trial on December 29, 2008; WTCI moved for summary judgment in July 2008 ( Williams/Schubert/Williams ) and February 2009 ( Dadswell ).
- Grove, hired as WTCI President/CEO in 2006, implemented a reorganization to outsource programming, cut commissions, and replace certain positions with younger staff; Williams, Williams, and Schubert were affected.
- Dadswell was hired in 2006 and left in 2007 after duties were redistributed; Nielsen Report incident allegedly tied to a hostile environment and later claimed retaliation for refusing to copy the report.
- Trial court held Williams, Williams, and Schubert established a prima facie case but granted summary judgment on pretext; Dadswell’s retaliatory discharge claims were dismissed.
- On appeal, court reverses as to all age-discrimination claims and Dadswell’s retaliatory-discharge claim, finding genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err granting summary judgment on age discrimination claims? | Williams/ Williams/ Schubert contend triable issues on pretext and age bias. | WTCI asserts no pretext; reorganization was non-age-based and legitimate. | Yes; summary judgment reversed; genuine issues of material fact exist. |
| Did the trial court err granting summary judgment on Barbara Dadswell's retaliatory discharge claim under common law/TPPA? | Dadswell argues her refusal to copy Nielsen Report was protected activity against illegal/unsafe practice and public policy. | WTCI contends no clear public policy violation and no substantial factor linking refusal to discharge. | Yes; summary judgment reversed; material factual disputes remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Rubin, 104 S.W.3d 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (elements of prima facie age discrimination; replacement by younger worker supports element)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (Supreme Court 1993) (pretext and ultimate burden shifting for age discrimination)
- Collins v. New York City Transit Auth., 305 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2002) (indirect proof framework for age discrimination)
- O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court 1996) (fourth element: replacement or inference of discrimination)
- Dugan v. Albemarle Co. Sch. Bd., 293 F.3d 716 (4th Cir. 2002) (replacement considerations in age-discrimination analysis)
- Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1998) (replacement by younger employee as indicia of discrimination)
- Mills v. CSX Transp., Inc., 300 S.W.3d 627 (Tenn. 2009) (summary-judgment framework; burden-shifting mechanics in Tennessee)
- Hannan v. Alltel Pub'g Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008) (Tennessee summary judgment standards and evidence appraisal)
- Giggers v. Memphis Housing Authority, 277 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2009) (McCarley/Hannan framework for summary judgment in THRA cases)
- Kinsler v. Berkline, LLC, 320 S.W.3d 796 (Tenn. 2010) (retaliatory discharge/summary-judgment approach; genuine issues preclude S.J.)
- Franklin v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc., 210 S.W.3d 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (employment-at-will; public policy considerations in retaliatory claims)
- Mason v. Seaton, 942 S.W.2d 470 (Tenn. 1997) (public policy belief-based protections under TPPA)