CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiff Joanna Goin sued Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, Bass Pro, Inc., Three Johns Company, and Track-mar Corporation in Tennessee state court for retaliatory discharge after asserting workers' compensation rights. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that retaliatory discharge claims under Tennessee law are common law torts and thus removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). Plaintiff moved to remand, asserting that her claim requires the interpretation of Tennessee's workers' compensation statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-114, especially concerning whether an employer's policy of reprisal or retaliatory acts other than discharge constitute a device under the statute, thus falling under the removal prohibition. The court, citing Harper v. AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., determined that Goin's novel legal theories necessitate interpreting the state's workers' compensation law. Therefore, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot, ruling that the action arises under the statute and should remain in state court.
Goin v. BASS PRO OUTDOOR WORLD, LLC is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, W.D. Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, W.D. Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Plaintiff Joanna Goin sued Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, Bass Pro, Inc., Three Johns Company, and Track-mar Corporation in Tennessee state court for retaliatory discharge after asserting workers' compensation rights. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that retaliatory discharge claims under Tennessee law are common law torts and thus removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). Plaintiff moved to remand, asserting that her claim requires the interpretation of Tennessee's workers' compensation statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-114, especially concerning whether an employer's policy of reprisal or retaliatory acts other than discharge constitute a "device" under the statute, thus falling under the removal prohibition. The court, citing Harper v. AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., determined that Goin's novel legal theories necessitate interpreting the state's workers' compensation law. Therefore, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot, ruling that the action "arises under" the statute and should remain in state court.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.