law retaliatory discharge claim in Tennessee

2014“Neither the statutory nor the common-law whistleblowing claims are triggered by simple disputes or arguments between employees and their supervisors regarding workplace procedures.” Collins v. AmSouth Bank, 241 S.W.3d 879, 885 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). -27- According to our Supreme Court, for a common law retaliatory discharge claim, the employee has the burden of proving that he or she was terminated for attempting “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 pr

2009To prevail on a common law retaliatory discharge claim, the employee must prove: “(1) that an at-will employment relationship existed between the employee and the employer, (2) that the employee was discharged, (3) that the employee was discharged for attempting to exercise a statutory or constitutional right, or for any other reason that violates a clear public policy, and (4) that such action was a substantial factor in the employer’s decision to discharge the employee.” Collins v. AmSouth Bank, 241 S.W.3d 879, 884 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

2017Int’l, 78 S.W.3d 852, 862 (Tenn. 2002) (citations omitted).

2006Crews v. Buckman Laboratories Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 862 (Tenn.2002).

2014Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, 346 S.W.3d 422, 437 (Tenn. 2011).

2012Because the existence of an employment-at-will relationship is an essential element of a common law retaliatory discharge claim, see Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 437-38 , we find that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to properly allege such. 3.

2011Phillips, 2010 WL 4514886 , at *4 (citing Guy, 79 S.W.3d at 535–37). 8 Gager v. River Park Hosp., No. M2007-02470-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 112544 at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2009) (“. . . inability to sustain a common law retaliatory discharge claim . . . necessarily dooms a statutory retaliatory discharge case.”).

2006Crews v. Buckman Laboratories Int'l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d at 862; see also Guy, 79 S.W.3d at 535 ; Mas-son v. Seaton, 942 S.W.2d 470, 474 (Tenn.1997); Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 717 (Tenn.1997); Hodges v. S.C.

2017Plaintiffs pursuing a common law retaliatory discharge claim are required to establish a prima facie case of retaliation: (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

2017Plaintiffs pursuing a common law retaliatory discharge claim are required to establish a prima facie case of retaliation: (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

2015Bd. Of Educ., 890 S.W.2d 788, 790 (Tenn.Ct.App.l994) (holding that the governmental entity was immune to a common law retaliatory discharge claim); Montgomery v. Mayor of Covington, 778 5.W.2d 444, 445 (Tenn.Ct.App.1988) (same).

2009Franklin, 210 S.W.3d at 528 (citations omitted).

2006Crews v. Buckman Laboratories Int'l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d at 862; see also Guy, 79 S.W.3d at 535 ; Mason v. Seaton, 942 S.W.2d 470, 474 (Tenn. 1997); Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 717 (Tenn.1997); Hodges v. S.C.

2006Crews v. Buckman Laboratories Int'l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d at 862; see also Guy, 79 S.W.3d at 535 ; Mas-son v. Seaton, 942 S.W.2d 470, 474 (Tenn.1997); Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 717 (Tenn.1997); Hodges v. S.C.

2006Crews v. Buckman Laboratories Int'l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d at 862; see also Guy, 79 S.W.3d at 535 ; Mason v. Seaton, 942 S.W.2d 470, 474 (Tenn. 1997); Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 717 (Tenn.1997); Hodges v. S.C.

2006Crews v. Buckman Laboratories Int'l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d at 862; see also Guy, 79 S.W.3d at 535 ; Mas-son v. Seaton, 942 S.W.2d 470, 474 (Tenn.1997); Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 717 (Tenn.1997); Hodges v. S.C.