|
Tennessee has a
statute that protects employees from employers who terminate an employee in
retaliation for reporting illegal activities. This statute is found in T.C.A.
§ 50-1-304 and is called the Tennessee “Retaliatory Discharge” statute. The design of the statute is to protect
employees from being terminated solely for opposing or speaking up about
illegal activities at the employer. It
is a whistleblower protection statute that is important to protect employees
who have the courage to speak up about illegal activities.
The most important
sections of this statute are found which describe the intent and purpose of the
statute are found in subsection (b), (c) and (f) as follows:
(b) No employee shall be discharged or terminated solely for refusing to
participate in, or for refusing to remain silent about, illegal activities.
(c)(1) Any employee terminated in violation of subsection (b) shall have
a cause of action against the employer for retaliatory discharge and any other
damages to which the employee may be entitled, subject to the limitations set
out in § 4-21-313.
(2) Any employee terminated in violation of subsection (b) solely for
refusing to participate in, or for refusing to remain silent about, illegal
activities who prevails in a cause of action against an employer for
retaliatory discharge for the actions shall be entitled to recover reasonable
attorney fees and costs.
……….
(f) In any civil cause of action
for retaliatory discharge brought pursuant to this section, or in any civil
cause of action alleging retaliation for refusing to participate in or remain
silent about illegal activities, the plaintiff shall have the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge. If the plaintiff
satisfies this burden, the burden shall then be on the defendant to produce
evidence that one (1) or more legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons existed for
the plaintiff's discharge. The burden on the defendant is one of production and
not persuasion. If the defendant produces such evidence, the presumption of
discrimination raised by the plaintiff's prima facie case is rebutted, and the
burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the reason given by the
defendant was not the true reason for the plaintiff's discharge and that the
stated reason was a pretext for unlawful retaliation. The foregoing allocations
of burdens of proof shall apply at all stages of the proceedings, including
motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff at all times retains the burden of
persuading the trier of fact that the plaintiff has been the victim of unlawful
retaliation.
|