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. E2012-02112-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2014

Larry Sneed v. The City of Red Bank, Tennessee

This case addresses whether the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) governs Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) claims against governmental entities and if there is a right to a jury trial for such claims in chancery court. The Court rejected the analysis from Young v. Davis, which had suggested the GTLA applied broadly to statutory claims against governmental entities, overruling it partially. Applying the Cruse v. City of Columbia analysis, the Court held that the THRA is an independent statute that removes governmental immunity and establishes legislative intent to provide a right to a jury trial for THRA claims against governmental entities in chancery court. Consequently, the Court of Appeals' judgment was reversed, and the trial court's transfer order was vacated, remanding the case to chancery court.

Sovereign ImmunityJury Trial RightAge DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeStatutory InterpretationGovernmental ImmunityTHRAGTLAChancery CourtInterlocutory Appeal
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Payne v. Goodman Manufacturing Co.

Plaintiff Connie Payne filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P., alleging claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for interference and retaliation, violations of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) for maternity leave, pregnancy discrimination, and retaliation, and claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's FMLA interference and retaliation claims, allowing them to proceed to trial, citing sufficient evidence of a causal connection due to temporal proximity between the FMLA request and termination. However, the court granted summary judgment on all THRA claims (pregnancy discrimination, maternity leave, and retaliation) and the EPA claim, dismissing them with prejudice. The THRA pregnancy discrimination claim failed due to a lack of direct evidence and insufficient temporal proximity. The THRA maternity leave and retaliation claims were also dismissed as they were analyzed under similar standards as the failed THRA discrimination claims. The EPA claim was dismissed because the plaintiff could not establish "equal work" compared to male co-workers, as they possessed more technical certifications and skills.

FMLATHRAEqual Pay ActPregnancy DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDiscriminationWorkplace RightsWage Disparity
References
76
Case No. 01S01-9605-FD-00090
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 1997

Kelly Carter v. United Parcel Service

Kelly Carr filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against her employer, United Parcel Service, and three employees, Ron Foster, Martin Sisk, and Andrew Martin, alleging violations of Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The U.S. District Court referred a certified question to the Tennessee Supreme Court regarding individual liability under the THRA. The Supreme Court held that the THRA's definition of "employer" and its "agent of an employer" language do not impose individual liability. While the THRA allows for accomplice liability, the Court found the facts insufficient to impose individual liability on any of the named employees, whether supervisory or non-supervisory, for aiding and abetting an employer's violation.

Sexual HarassmentIndividual LiabilityTennessee Human Rights ActTHRATitle VIIEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Harassment
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

England v. Fleetguard, Inc.

Plaintiff sued Fleet-guard, Inc. and its parent corporation, Cummins Engine Company, alleging termination due to honestly held religious beliefs and retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The central legal question addressed by the court was the availability of punitive damages under state law, specifically the THRA. The court ruled that punitive damages are not recoverable under the THRA's relevant provisions (Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 4-21-306, 4-21-311). Furthermore, the court held that the statutory remedies provided by the THRA are exclusive in cases grounded in religious discrimination, thereby denying the plaintiff's request to amend the complaint to include a common-law claim for retaliatory discharge.

Employment DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargePunitive DamagesTennessee Human Rights ActStatutory RemediesCommon Law ClaimsExclusivity of RemediesLegislative IntentCivil Rights Act of 1964
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harman v. Moore's Quality Snack Foods, Inc.

Kimberly Dawn Harman and her husband sued Moore’s Quality Snack Foods, Inc., alleging sexual harassment and discrimination in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) and Federal Civil Rights Acts, also claiming outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Tennessee Worker’s Compensation Act (TWCA). The chancellor initially found an implied repeal of the TWCA's exclusive remedy concerning THRA claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the outcome that the plaintiffs' claims under the THRA were not barred but rejected the chancellor's reasoning of implied repeal. The appellate court distinguished the purposes of the two acts, holding that THRA claims for non-physical injuries like humiliation and emotional distress are separate from physical injuries covered by TWCA, and thus, not barred by its exclusive remedy.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationTennessee Human Rights ActWorker's Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionImplied RepealStatutory ConstructionEmotional DistressLoss of ConsortiumAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. M2003-00178-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2004

Judy S. Parnell v. APCOM, Inc.

The case involves Judy S. Parnell's claims of breach of contract and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) violations against her former employer, APCOM, Inc., and other defendants, following her termination. While the Court of Appeals of Tennessee initially found the trial court erred in dismissing the THRA claim as time-barred under the savings statute, it ultimately affirmed the dismissal of all claims. Parnell failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the THRA, as she was not replaced by someone outside her protected class. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the trial court's finding that no enforceable contract existed for her promotion, and her promissory estoppel claim lacked substantial economic detriment from reliance. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims is affirmed.

DiscriminationEmployment LawBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelTennessee Human Rights ActSavings StatuteStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseAge Discrimination
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carr v. United Parcel Service

The case addresses a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee concerning individual liability under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). Plaintiff Kelly Carr alleged sexual harassment against her employer, United Parcel Service (UPS), and three UPS employees. The individual defendants moved for judgment, arguing they could not be held individually liable. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the THRA's 'agent of an employer' language does not impose individual liability, aligning with federal interpretations of Title VII. While the THRA provides for accomplice liability for individuals who aid, abet, incite, compel, or command an employer's discriminatory practice, the Court found no evidence under the certified facts to hold the non-supervisory and supervisory defendants individually liable for either co-worker harassment or supervisor-created hostile work environment, as their actions did not constitute aiding and abetting the employer's failure to take remedial action.

Sexual HarassmentTennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Individual LiabilityEmployer LiabilityTitle VIICertified Question of LawRespondeat SuperiorAiding and AbettingHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Harassment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Nashville Electric Power Board

Plaintiffs Jerry Moore, John Bruce, and Charlie Spears, civil service employees of Nashville Electric Service (NES), sued NES and its Civil Service and Pension Board members, alleging age discrimination and denial of promotions under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that THRA claimants do not need to exhaust civil service administrative remedies, but found that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient affirmative evidence to rebut NES's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for denying promotions under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis for disparate treatment claims. The court also dismissed retaliation and due process claims.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawTennessee Human Rights ActSummary JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesCivil Service EmployeesFailure to PromoteDisparate TreatmentMcDonnell Douglas TestPretext for Discrimination
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burress v. City of Franklin

Plaintiff Harold Dwayne Burress, a former police officer, sued the City of Franklin for claims under FMLA, ADA, Title VII, § 1983, TDA, and THRA, stemming from his employment termination on October 6, 2008. The City filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court granted summary judgment for the City on Burress's FMLA, Title VII, THRA, and § 1983 discrimination claims, as well as his due-process and workers-compensation-retaliation claims, as Burress failed to support them. However, the court denied summary judgment on Burress's ADA discrimination and retaliation claims, his TDA discrimination claim (except for the accommodation component), and his post-termination retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Employment LawDisability DiscriminationRetaliationFamily Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Title VII Civil Rights ActTennessee Disability Act (TDA)Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Police Officer TerminationLiver Transplant
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bredesen v. Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission

This case concerns the process for appointing a new justice to the Tennessee Supreme Court under the "Tennessee Plan." Appellants J. Houston Gordon and George T. Lewis challenged the Governor's rejection of a judicial nominee panel, alleging issues with the validity of the panel after a nominee withdrew, and claiming equal protection violations and applicability of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the THRA does not apply and that the equal protection challenge is a non-justiciable political question and otherwise without merit. The Court held that a nominee's withdrawal does not invalidate a panel, but renominating a previously rejected candidate on a subsequent panel is impermissible, thus modifying the trial court's remedy to require the Commission to reinstitute the full selection process for the second panel.

Judicial Selection ProcessGubernatorial AppointmentConstitutional InterpretationSeparation of PowersEqual Protection ClauseTennessee Human Rights ActJudicial DiversityPolitical Question DoctrineStatutory ConstructionJudicial Vacancies
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 39 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