CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawson v. Adams

This case concerns a wrongful discharge lawsuit filed by Lester Mitchell Lawson, III against his former employer, Anthony Adams. Lawson alleged he was unlawfully terminated for refusing to participate in or remain silent about illegal activities, specifically operating unsafe equipment. The Trial Court initially granted summary judgment to Adams, ruling that Lawson failed to report the activities to an entity other than Adams. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment regarding the 'refusal to remain silent' claim, maintaining the requirement for external reporting. However, it vacated the summary judgment on the 'refusal to participate' claim, asserting that no such reporting requirement exists. The appellate court found that Lawson's allegations, if true, sufficiently established a violation of public policy related to motor vehicle safety regulations.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ActUnsafe Working ConditionsSummary JudgmentPublic Policy ViolationRefusal to Participate in Illegal ActivityRefusal to Remain Silent about Illegal ActivityTennessee Court of AppealsMotor Vehicle SafetyEmployer Responsibility
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moskal v. First Tennessee Bank

The plaintiff initiated a retaliatory discharge action, alleging termination from her employment for refusing to falsify documents for the Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation and for reporting illegal student loan activities to the F.B.I. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, upholding the employee-at-will doctrine. However, the appellate court reviewed established precedents, including *Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co.* and *Watson v. Cleveland Chair Co.*, which recognize a public policy exception to the at-will rule. This exception applies when an employee is terminated solely for refusing to participate in, or remain silent about, illegal activities. Concluding that the plaintiff's complaint properly raised this issue, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployee-at-Will DoctrineWhistleblower ProtectionIllegal ActivitiesSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate ReviewPublic Policy ExceptionStudent Loan FraudFalsification of RecordsTennessee Employment Law
References
4
Case No. M2012-02423-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. City of Burns

Plaintiff Captain Larry D. Williams was discharged by the City of Burns after reporting his police chief, Jerry D. Sumerour, Jr., for pressuring him into illegally fixing a traffic ticket for the chief's stepson. The defendant municipality claimed Williams was terminated for violating the chain of command and undermining the chief's authority. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that disciplining Williams for reporting illegal activity to the mayor was an admission of retaliatory motive and that other reasons for termination were pretextual. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, concluding Williams was discharged solely in retaliation for refusing to participate in and remain silent about illegal activities under the Tennessee Public Protection Act.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionIllegal Ticket FixingChain of Command ViolationPolice Officer TerminationEmployment At-WillPublic Policy ExceptionPretext for RetaliationCausation in Employment LawMunicipal Employment
References
78
Case No. 01-A-01-9807-CV-00347
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1999

Mitchell L. Darnall v. A+ Homecare, Inc. and James D. Smith

The plaintiff, Mitchell L. Darnall, appealed a summary judgment granted to the defendants, A+ Homecare, Inc. and James D. Smith, in a retaliatory discharge complaint under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304. Darnall claimed he was terminated for questioning suspicious accounting practices, while the employer asserted he was discharged for sexual harassment. The court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that under TCA § 50-1-304, the employee must prove an "exclusive causal relationship" between their refusal to participate in or remain silent about illegal activities and their termination. The court found substantial evidence suggesting Darnall's sexually explicit comments to a co-worker were a reason for his discharge, thus precluding an "exclusive causal relationship" with his "whistleblower" activities. The court also clarified that James D. Smith, as president and sole stockholder, was not an "employer" under the statute and thus not liable.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionAt-Will EmploymentSummary JudgmentSexual HarassmentCausal RelationshipEmployer LiabilityTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationPublic Protection Act
References
23
Case No. NO. 03A01-9711-CV-00525
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1998

Jeff Hubrig v. Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Linc Hall, Individually Larry Pierce, Individually, and Jim Kolling, Individually

Plaintiff Jeff Hubrig, a self-described whistleblower, sought damages after his employment termination, alleging it was due to his refusal to participate in or remain silent about illegal corporate activities. The defendants, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. and several individuals, denied these claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding Hubrig was terminated for time card abuse and sexual harassment. Hubrig appealed, raising issues regarding the pretextual nature of his termination reasons, the viability of a common law retaliatory discharge claim, and outrageous conduct. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Hubrig's misconduct was the sole cause for his termination and that he failed to demonstrate his protected activities were the exclusive reason for his dismissal. The court also clarified that individual supervisors could not be held liable under T.C.A. § 50-1-304.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionSummary JudgmentEmployment LawSexual HarassmentTime Card FraudAt-Will EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySupervisor LiabilityWorkplace Misconduct
References
30
Case No. 14-12-00991-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Joseph Peine v. HIT Services L.P., Wood Group USA, Inc., John Wood Group PLC, Wood Group Power GP, LLC and Wood Group Management Services, Inc.

Joseph Peiner, a former CFO, sued his employer and related entities for wrongful termination, alleging he was fired for refusing to commit a crime (inflating profits). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees. On appeal, Peiner argued there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether his refusal was the sole cause of his termination, as required by the Sabine Pilot exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the evidence conclusively proved Peiner was terminated, at least in part, for breaching his confidentiality duties by sending company documents to a reporter. The court rejected Peiner's arguments, emphasizing that Sabine Pilot requires the illegal act refusal to be the sole cause of termination and does not protect employees for reporting illegal activities.

Wrongful TerminationEmployment LawSabine Pilot ExceptionSummary JudgmentConfidentiality BreachWhistleblower ProtectionRetaliatory DischargeTexas Appellate CourtCorporate GovernanceFinancial Misconduct
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ed Rachal Foundation v. D'UNGER

Claude D’Unger sued his former employer, the Ed Rachal Foundation, and its CEO, Paul Altheide, alleging breach of contract, wrongful termination, and tortious interference with a contract. D’Unger claimed he was terminated for refusing to conceal alleged illegal activities involving the mistreatment of undocumented immigrants on the Foundation's ranch and Altheide's self-dealing. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on D’Unger’s wrongful termination claim against the Foundation, finding sufficient evidence that he was fired for refusing to perform an illegal act. However, the court reversed the breach of contract and tortious interference claims, as well as the award of attorney’s fees. Consequently, the case was affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.

Employment LawWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceAt-Will EmploymentCorporate GovernanceIllegal Act RefusalLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mackey v. 1525 Dorchester Co.

The plaintiff, a rent-stabilized tenant, sought an injunction compelling her landlord, Mr. Liefer and 1525 Dorchester Co., to complete Section 8 subsidy paperwork and damages under Real Property Law §§ 223-b and 230. The landlord allegedly refused to sign the voucher in retaliation for the tenant's complaints to HPD and participation in tenant organizing activities. While the court dismissed the claim under RPL § 223-b (2) due to a lack of substantial alteration of tenancy terms, it found a valid cause of action under RPL § 230, which prohibits landlords from interfering with tenant organizing or diminishing tenant rights and privileges. The court rejected the landlord's arguments regarding non-participation in Section 8 and preemption of state law, noting that the refusal could harass the tenant and interfere with her rights. Therefore, the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action was denied, allowing the case to proceed given factual disputes and supporting affidavits.

Tenant RightsLandlord RetaliationSection 8 SubsidyReal Property LawMotion to DismissInjunctionHarassmentTenant OrganizingVoucher RefusalCPLR 3211
References
6
Case No. W2002-00012-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2003

Richard McDonald v. Swain & Sons

Richard McDonald, a truck driver, sued Swain & Sons Transports, Inc., George Filgo, and Don Fields for retaliatory discharge. McDonald alleged he was fired for refusing to participate in or remain silent about alleged illegal activity by the trucking company, rather than due to a one-vehicle accident. The trial court found in favor of the trucking company on all issues. McDonald appealed, but failed to file a transcript or statement of the evidence from the trial court proceedings. The appellate court concluded that the issues raised by McDonald required a review of the lower court's proceedings which was impossible without the necessary record. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.

Retaliatory dischargeTrucking companyEmployment terminationAppellate procedureLack of transcriptAbuse of discretionAdmission of evidenceBench trialWorkers' compensationTennessee
References
6
Case No. I-95381, 01A01-9807-CV-00347
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1999

Mitchell L. Darnall v. A+ Homecare, Inc., and James Bradley Smith - Concurring

Judge William C. Koch, Jr.'s concurring opinion in Mitchell L. Darnall v. A+ Homecare, Inc. affirms the summary judgment against Darnall's claim. The opinion aims to clarify the elements of a claim under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304, specifically focusing on the causation standard for retaliatory discharge. Judge Koch asserts that the statutory language requires an employee to prove they were terminated "solely" for refusing to participate in or remain silent about illegal activities, diverging from prior "substantial factor" or "exclusive causal relationship" tests. This interpretation establishes a more employer-favorable standard for such claims. The judge emphasizes adherence to the plain statutory text to prevent future ambiguity in legal interpretation.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment LawPublic Protection ActStatutory InterpretationCausation StandardSummary JudgmentConcurring OpinionTennessee Supreme CourtCourt of AppealsEmployment At Will
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,100 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational