plaintiff asserting claim in Tennessee

2018Auth., 343 S.W.3d 18, 26-27 (Tenn. 2011)).

2012Auth., 343 S.W.3d 18, 27 (Tenn. 2011)); see also Rose v. Cookeville Reg. Med.

2012The burden is on the plaintiff asserting a claim of common law retaliatory discharge to demonstrate: (1) the existence of an employment-at-will relationship; (2) that the employee was discharged; (3) that the employee was discharged for attempting “to -8- 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 the employee’s exercise of those protected rights or compliance with that clear public policy was a “substantial factor in the employer’s decis

2012As stated above, a plaintiff asserting a claim under the TPPA must establish, among other things, that “the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment solely for the plaintiff’s refusal to participate in or remain silent about the illegal activity.” Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 437 (citing Sykes v. Chattanooga Hous.

2024We reiterate that a plaintiff asserting a claim for unjust enrichment “must [] demonstrate that he or she has exhausted all remedies against the person with whom the plaintiff enjoyed privity of contract.” Freeman Indus., 172 S.W.3d at 525 (citations omitted); Paschall’s, Inc. v. Dozier, 407 S.W.2d at 155 (“[T]he furnisher of the materials and labor must have exhausted his remedies against the person with whom he had contracted, and still has not received the reasonable value of his services.”).

2024We reiterate that a plaintiff asserting a claim for unjust enrichment “must [] demonstrate that he or she has exhausted all remedies against the person with whom the plaintiff enjoyed privity of contract.” Freeman Indus., 172 S.W.3d at 525 (citations omitted); Paschall’s, Inc. v. Dozier, 407 S.W.2d at 155 (“[T]he furnisher of the materials and labor must have exhausted his remedies against the person with whom he had contracted, and still has not received the reasonable value of his services.”).

2022Defendants’ Duty to Plaintiff Plaintiff contests the trial court’s conclusion that Defendants did not owe her a duty of care based on its finding that “any defects to the stairway steps amount[ed] to a ‘minor aberration.’” According to Plaintiff, the court’s finding with respect to the seriousness of the defect is not supported by the record; rather, there is purportedly sufficient evidence in the record “by which a reasonable juror could have concluded that the stairs on the premises [constituted] a dangerous condition.” Thus, the issue before this Court is whether the deviation or defect in

2016Television Corp., 349 S.W.3d 501, 509 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Wilson, 104 S.W.3d at 51-52 ); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-311 (e) (stating that plaintiff carries burden of “establishing a prima facie case of intentional discrimination”).

2013Auth., 277 S.W.3d 359, 364 (Tenn. 2009) (quoting McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150, 153 (Tenn. 1995)). 6 A plaintiff asserting a claim for medical malpractice must prove the following statutory elements: (1) The recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the profession and the specialty thereof, if any, that the defendant practices in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community at the time the alleged injury or wrongful action occurred; (2) That the defendant acted with less than or failed to act with ordinary and reasonable care in accordance with s

2013Auth., 277 S.W.3d 359, 364 (Tenn. 2009) (quoting McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150, 153 (Tenn. 1995)). 6 A plaintiff asserting a claim for medical malpractice must prove the following statutory elements: (1) The recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the profession and the specialty thereof, if any, that the defendant practices in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community at the time the alleged injury or wrongful action occurred; (2) That the defendant acted with less than or failed to act with ordinary and reasonable care in accordance with s