|
The recent Tennessee Court of Appeals
decision of Phillip Dean
Patrick v. Nelson Global Products, Inc., No. E2013-02444-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 3763677
(Tenn. Ct. App. 2014)
discussed whether a former employee can bring a retaliatory discharge claim
against their employer for being terminated allegedly because he was a witness
to a co-workers’ work related injury. In
this case, the plaintiff asserted that he was standing near a co-worker when
the co-worker suffered a work related injury.
That co-worker filed a workers’ compensation claim. Shortly thereafter the employer terminated the
plaintiff (not the individual who was actually injured in the workers’ compensation
injury incident). The plaintiff asserts
he was terminated because he was a witness to the co-worker’s work injury and
that this was a substantial factor in his termination. As a result, he brought a retaliatory
discharge case against his employer.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals noted that
in order to prevail on a retaliatory discharge claim in Tennessee, there are
four essential elements. These elements
are as follows:
(1) that an employment-at-will relationship existed;
(2) that the employee was discharged;
(3) that the reason for the discharge was that the employee attempted to
exercise a statutory or constitutional right, or for any other reason which
violates a clear public policy evidenced by an unambiguous constitutional,
statutory, or regulatory provision; and
(4) that a substantial factor in the employer's decision to discharge the
employee was the employee's exercise of protected rights or compliance with
clear public policy.
Patrick at 3 (Citing Tennessee
Supreme Court decision Webb v. Nashville
Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn. 2011)). The Court found that the plaintiff clearly
could establish elements number one and two.
However, there were significant problems with plaintiff’s ability to
establish elements number three and four.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals found that plaintiff’s
claim could not prevail under Tennessee law because the plaintiff could not
establish essential elements number three and four. The Court found:
An examination of
the complaint makes it evident that Plaintiff cannot prevail. He does not
allege that he was terminated because of his own exercise of a statutory or
constitutional right. Plaintiff was not an injured employee attempting to
exercise his right to seek the Act's benefits as a result of a work-related
accident. Plaintiff does not even allege that Sprankles' right to seek
compensation for his work injury was chilled or otherwise impeded. Moreover,
his insistence that his termination violates the clear public policy of the Act
is at best a bald, conclusory allegation that we do not accept.
Patrick at 4. As a result, the Tennessee
Court of Appeals found that simply being a witness to a workers’ compensation
injury and subsequently being terminated due to being a witness does not
provide a basis for a retaliatory discharge claim under Tennessee law. The proposed new Tennessee cause of action
presented in this case was quite a stretch and I think the Tennessee Court of
Appeals dealt with this correctly. Expanding
protections in a retaliatory discharge claim to simple bystanders or witnesses of
work accident would potentially greatly broaden retaliatory discharge litigation
in this area and it really does not serve the legitimate public policy purposes
for retaliatory discharge cause of action.
This is a good case for employers in Tennessee and should be cited when
there are attempts to expand the retaliatory discharge doctrine in Tennessee.
Follow me on Twitter at @jasonalee for updates from the Tennessee Defense Litigation
blog.
|