Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. City of Burnsgreen2 sentences2020See Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96, 110 (Tenn. 2015) (“[T]he TPPA requires the plaintiff to prove that retaliation for the protected conduct was the sole reason [for the termination of employment].”). 10 Appellant asserts that this Court held in Whitney v. First Call Ambulance Service, et al., No. M2018-01155-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 2026495 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2019), that the elements of a TPPA claim and THRA claim are “nearly identical.” The Whitney opinion does not state this. 2020See Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96, 110 (Tenn. 2015) (“[T]he TPPA requires the plaintiff to prove that retaliation for the protected conduct was the sole reason [for the termination of employment].”). 10 Appellant asserts that this Court held in Whitney v. First Call Ambulance Service, et al., No. M2018-01155-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 2026495 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2019), that the elements of a TPPA claim and THRA claim are “nearly identical.” The Whitney opinion does not state this. | 3 | 5 |
Sasser v. Averitt Express, Inc.green2 sentences2015Co., 958 S.W.2d 342, 345-46 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997) (reversing judgment for plaintiff based on lack of evidence to support the elements of a TPPA claim); see also Newcomb v. Kohler, 222 S.W.3d 368, 389 (Tenn.Ct.App.2006) (focusing on the elements of the common-law retaliatory discharge claim in determining whether a directed verdict should have been granted); Sasser v. Averitt Express, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 422, 426-27 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992) (same). 2015Co., 958 S.W.2d 342, 345-46 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997) (reversing judgment for plaintiff based on lack of evidence to support the elements of a TPPA claim); see also Newcomb v. Kohler, 222 S.W.3d 368, 389 (Tenn.Ct.App.2006) (focusing on the elements of the common-law retaliatory discharge claim in determining whether a directed verdict should have been granted); Sasser v. Averitt Express, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 422, 426-27 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992) (same). | 2 | 2 |
Newcomb v. Kohler Co.green2 sentences2015Co., 958 S.W.2d 342, 345-46 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997) (reversing judgment for plaintiff based on lack of evidence to support the elements of a TPPA claim); see also Newcomb v. Kohler, 222 S.W.3d 368, 389 (Tenn.Ct.App.2006) (focusing on the elements of the common-law retaliatory discharge claim in determining whether a directed verdict should have been granted); Sasser v. Averitt Express, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 422, 426-27 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992) (same). 2015Co., 958 S.W.2d 342, 345-46 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997) (reversing judgment for plaintiff based on lack of evidence to support the elements of a TPPA claim); see also Newcomb v. Kohler, 222 S.W.3d 368, 389 (Tenn.Ct.App.2006) (focusing on the elements of the common-law retaliatory discharge claim in determining whether a directed verdict should have been granted); Sasser v. Averitt Express, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 422, 426-27 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992) (same). | 2 | 2 |
Guy v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.green2 sentences2014Guy, 79 S.W.3d at 534-35 . 2014Guy, 79 S.W.3d at 534-35 . | 1 | 3 |
Voss v. Shelter Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2015Co., 958 S.W.2d 342, 345-46 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997) (reversing judgment for plaintiff based on lack of evidence to support the elements of a TPPA claim); see also Newcomb v. Kohler, 222 S.W.3d 368, 389 (Tenn.Ct.App.2006) (focusing on the elements of the common-law retaliatory discharge claim in determining whether a directed verdict should have been granted); Sasser v. Averitt Express, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 422, 426-27 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992) (same). 2015Co., 958 S.W.2d 342, 345-46 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997) (reversing judgment for plaintiff based on lack of evidence to support the elements of a TPPA claim); see also Newcomb v. Kohler, 222 S.W.3d 368, 389 (Tenn.Ct.App.2006) (focusing on the elements of the common-law retaliatory discharge claim in determining whether a directed verdict should have been granted); Sasser v. Averitt Express, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 422, 426-27 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992) (same). | 1 | 2 |
Charles Haynes v. Formac Stables, Inc.green2 sentences2022See Haynes v. Formac Stables, Inc., 463 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Tenn. 2015) (holding that the TPPA “requires an employee to show that his or her refusal to remain silent was the sole reason for the discharge”). 2022See Haynes v. Formac Stables, Inc., 463 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Tenn. 2015) (holding that the TPPA “requires an employee to show that his or her refusal to remain silent was the sole reason for the discharge”). | 1 | 1 |
Baines v. Wilson Countygreen1 sentence2015Auth., 919 F.Supp. 280, 283 (E.D.Tenn.1996) (finding governmental immunity for pre-1997 TPPA claim); Baines v. Wilson Cnty., 86 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tenn.Ct.App.2002) (holding that *792 the GTLA did not remove sovereign immunity for common law retaliatory discharge claim); Seals v. Jefferson City, No. 03A01-9808-CV-00269, 1999 WL 349690 , at *1, *3 (Tenn.Ct.App. | 1 | 1 |
Ketron v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authoritygreen1 sentence2015Auth., 919 F.Supp. 280, 283 (E.D.Tenn.1996) (finding governmental immunity for pre-1997 TPPA claim); Baines v. Wilson Cnty., 86 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tenn.Ct.App.2002) (holding that *792 the GTLA did not remove sovereign immunity for common law retaliatory discharge claim); Seals v. Jefferson City, No. 03A01-9808-CV-00269, 1999 WL 349690 , at *1, *3 (Tenn.Ct.App. | 1 | 1 |
Lucius v. City of Memphisgreen1 sentence2015A. The GTLA The doctrine of sovereign immunity, which provides that suit may not be brought against the government unless the government has .consented .to be sued, Lucius v. City of Memphis, 925 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tenn.1996), originated in “feudal notions of the divine right.of kings. | 1 | 1 |
Gary M. GOSSETT v. TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.red1 sentence2015Even viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a reasonable juror could not conclude that the sole reason for the Plaintiffs‟ termination was their refusal to conceal or remain silent about Hogg‟s illegal activity. 5 Likewise, “[a] majority of the federal courts of appeals have affirmatively rejected the proposition that, where the employer has set forth a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action, temporal proximity alone is sufficient evidence of pretext to survive summary judgment.” Gossett, 320 S.W.3d at 794 (Clark, J., concurring in part and dissenting | 1 | 1 |
Farmer v. Tennessee Department of Safetygreen2 sentences2014In so holding, Young relied on Farmer v. Tennessee Department of Safety, 228 S.W.3d 96 (Tenn.Ct.App.2007), in which the Court of Appeals was asked to determine whether a TPPA claim against the State could be saved from the applicable statute of limitations by the saving statutes found in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 28-1-105 and 28-1-115 (2000). 2014In so holding, Young relied on Farmer v. Tennessee Department of Safety, 228 S.W.3d 96 (Tenn.Ct.App.2007), in which the Court of Appeals was asked to determine whether a TPPA claim against the State could be saved from the applicable statute of limitations by the saving statutes found in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 28-1-105 and 28-1-115 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Timmy Sykes v. Chattanooga Housing Authority
green
2 sentences2015The statute‟s use of the term “solely” means that an employee can prevail with a TPPA claim “only if he or she can prove that his or her refusal to participate in or to remain silent about illegal activities was the only reason for the termination.” Id. at 110-11 (quoting Darnall v. A+ Homecare, Inc., No. 01-A-01-9807- CV-0034, 1999 WL 346225 , at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 2, 1999) (Koch, J., concurring)). 2015The statute‟s use of the term “solely” means that an employee can prevail with a TPPA claim “only if he or she can prove that his or her refusal to participate in or to remain silent about illegal activities was the only reason for the termination.” Id. at 110-11 (quoting Darnall v. A+ Homecare, Inc., No. 01-A-01-9807- CV-0034, 1999 WL 346225 , at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 2, 1999) (Koch, J., concurring)). | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Collins v. AmSouth Bank
green
2 sentences2021Id. (citing Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96, 111 (Tenn. 2015)). 2021Id. (citing Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96, 111 (Tenn. 2015)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Franklin v. Swift Transportation Co.
green
1 sentence2016Franklin, 210 S.W.3d at 528 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Chism v. Mid-South Milling Co., Inc.
red
2 sentences2016Because we have affirmed the summary dismissal of the TPPA grounds for reasons stated in this opinion, it is not necessary for us to consider the additional grounds that were not considered by the trial court. - 12 - who refuse to participate in illegal activities or remain silent about them.” Williams, 465 S.W.3d at 109 (citing Chism, 762 S.W.2d at 555-57 ).11 The essential elements of a common law retaliatory discharge claim are as follows: (1) that an employment-at-will relationship existed; (2) that he was discharged; (3) that the reason for his discharge was that he attempted to exercise 2016Because we have affirmed the summary dismissal of the TPPA grounds for reasons stated in this opinion, it is not necessary for us to consider the additional grounds that were not considered by the trial court. - 12 - who refuse to participate in illegal activities or remain silent about them.” Williams, 465 S.W.3d at 109 (citing Chism, 762 S.W.2d at 555-57 ).11 The essential elements of a common law retaliatory discharge claim are as follows: (1) that an employment-at-will relationship existed; (2) that he was discharged; (3) that the reason for his discharge was that he attempted to exercise | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Larry Sneed v. The City of Red Bank, Tennessee
green
2 sentences2015The issue raised in this case encompasses two distinct questions, and in light of this Court’s decision in Sneed v. City of Red Bank, 459 S.W.3d 17 (Tenn.2014), we directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing- on the following two issues, which we will now address: (1) Whether the GTLA applies to a TPPA claim against a governmental entity; and (2) If the GTLA does not apply, does a plaintiff bringing a TPPA claim in circuit court have a right to trial by jury? 2015The issue raised in this case encompasses two distinct questions, and in light of this Court’s decision in Sneed v. City of Red Bank, 459 S.W.3d 17 (Tenn.2014), we directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing- on the following two issues, which we will now address: (1) Whether the GTLA applies to a TPPA claim against a governmental entity; and (2) If the GTLA does not apply, does a plaintiff bringing a TPPA claim in circuit court have a right to trial by jury? | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.