CompFox AI Summary
Edward E. Randolph was discharged from his employment with Dominion Bank of Middle Tennessee after 24 years of service at the age of 60. He filed suit alleging age discrimination, retaliatory discharge, and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in his employment contract. The trial court dismissed the retaliatory discharge claim but denied the motion to dismiss the implied covenant claim. On interlocutory appeal, the court reviewed Tennessee's employment-at-will doctrine and its exceptions, noting the Supreme Court's reluctance to expand them beyond specific legislative or constitutional precedents. The appellate court distinguished Randolph's argument of custom and practice from a written contractual provision, concluding that it did not establish a basis for an implied covenant. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, dismissing the cause of action based on an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Randolph v. Dominion Bank of Middle Tennessee is a workers' compensation case decided in Court of Appeals of 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 Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Edward E. Randolph was discharged from his employment with Dominion Bank of Middle Tennessee after 24 years of service at the age of 60. He filed suit alleging age discrimination, retaliatory discharge, and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in his employment contract. The trial court dismissed the retaliatory discharge claim but denied the motion to dismiss the implied covenant claim. On interlocutory appeal, the court reviewed Tennessee's employment-at-will doctrine and its exceptions, noting the Supreme Court's reluctance to expand them beyond specific legislative or constitutional precedents. The appellate court distinguished Randolph's argument of custom and practice from a written contractual provision, concluding that it did not establish a basis for an implied covenant. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, dismissing the cause of action based on an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.