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

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Case No. E2003-01685-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2004

Randall C. Hagy v. Commisssioner, Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Tennessee Distribution, Inc.

Randall C. Hagy was discharged from his employment with Tennessee Distribution, Inc. after refusing to handle materials he deemed offensive to his religious beliefs. The Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development denied Hagy unemployment benefits, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Chancery Court for Sullivan County. Hagy appealed to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, raising issues concerning the evidentiary support for the decision, alleged procedural violations of his right to a jury trial, and violations of his constitutional rights, including freedom of religion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding substantial and material evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Hagy was discharged for misconduct due to his refusal to perform job duties. The court also determined that the unemployment compensation law was a neutral and generally applicable law, thus not violating Hagy's free exercise of religion, and declined to address the jury trial issue as it was not raised in the lower court.

Unemployment CompensationReligious DiscriminationEmployee MisconductRefusal to WorkFreedom of ReligionAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawChancery CourtCourt of Appeals
References
9
Case No. M2013-01235-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2014

Kimberly A. Sparkman v. Burns Phillips, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Labor And Workforce Development, and First Tennessee Bank, N. A.

This appeal concerns the denial of unemployment compensation benefits to Kimberly A. Sparkman. She was terminated from her employment at First Tennessee Bank, N.A., for refusing an alcohol test after her supervisors detected alcohol on her. Sparkman had previously been warned that refusal to take such a test would result in termination. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the Appeals Tribunal, the Board of Review, and the Chancery Court all found her refusal to constitute work-related misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from benefits. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the smell of alcohol provided a reasonable basis for the test request and that her refusal, despite prior warning, was work-related misconduct under state law.

unemployment benefitsworkplace misconductalcohol testingrefusal to testemployment terminationjudicial reviewadministrative decisionTennessee lawappellate reviewreasonable suspicion
References
13
Case No. M2010-01955-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2011

State of Tennessee, by and through Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter for the State of Tennessee v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company

This case involves the State of Tennessee suing NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company, a foreign tobacco product manufacturer, for failing to make required escrow deposits under the Tobacco Escrow Fund Act. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to Sumatra due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed, concluding that Sumatra had sufficient minimum contacts with the state through its intentional nationwide distribution system. The court found that Sumatra purposefully availed itself of the Tennessee market and that exercising personal jurisdiction was fair and reasonable. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the constitutionality of the Escrow Fund Act against Sumatra's affirmative defenses, remanding the case for the calculation of escrow funds owed by Sumatra.

Personal JurisdictionTobacco Escrow Fund ActMinimum ContactsStream of CommerceForeign CorporationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEqual ProtectionState Statutes
References
133
Case No. E2022-01058-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2024

Heather Smith v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee

This case addresses whether the right to petition in the Tennessee Constitution is enforceable against private parties and can form the basis for a "public policy" exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The plaintiff, Heather Smith, an at-will employee, was terminated by BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee after emailing legislators to express grievances about her employer's COVID-19 vaccination mandate. The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that Article I, Section 23 of the Tennessee Constitution, which grants the right to petition, is enforceable only against governmental entities, not private actors. Therefore, private employers do not violate clear public policy by terminating employees for exercising this right, and at-will employees cannot base retaliatory discharge claims against private employers on this constitutional provision. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Smith's complaint.

Employment-at-willRetaliatory DischargeRight to PetitionCOVID-19 Vaccination MandatePrivate EmployerPublic Policy ExceptionState ConstitutionFirst AmendmentGovernmental EntitiesPrivate Actors
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1993

Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter

This case concerns a constitutional challenge to Tennessee's public school funding system, alleging violations of the education clause and equal protection provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The plaintiffs, small school systems, superintendents, students, and parents, argued that disparities in funding led to unequal educational opportunities. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Tennessee, in this opinion, reversed the Court of Appeals, finding that the statutory funding scheme resulted in constitutionally impermissible disparities in educational opportunities and failed the "rational basis" test under equal protection provisions, despite arguments for local control. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, with the responsibility for fashioning a remedy left to the General Assembly.

Education FundingEqual ProtectionConstitutional LawPublic School SystemSchool Finance ReformDisparity in EducationState Supreme CourtJudicial ReviewLegislative PrerogativeLocal Control
References
42
Case No. M2013-00898-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2014

American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania v. State of Tennessee

This case addresses an appeal by American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, and other Pennsylvania-domiciled insurance companies, challenging retaliatory insurance premium taxes imposed by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance. The core issue revolves around whether Pennsylvania's surcharges for three specific Workers' Compensation funds are imposed upon Tennessee-domiciled insurance companies doing business in Pennsylvania, thereby triggering Tennessee's retaliatory tax statute. The Tennessee Claims Commission ruled in favor of the State, and the insurance companies appealed. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the Claims Commission's decision, concluding that the Pennsylvania surcharges constitute a burden on insurance companies and that the imposition of Tennessee's retaliatory tax is constitutional and proper, rejecting arguments related to due process, UAPA, Full Faith and Credit, Equal Protection, Commerce Clause, and Uniformity Clause.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance Premium TaxPennsylvania Workers' CompensationTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationInterstate CommerceDue ProcessUniform Administrative Procedures ActFull Faith and CreditEqual Protection Clause
References
24
Case No. M2013-00872-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2014

Zurich American Insurance Company v. State of Tennessee

This case concerns an appeal by Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company challenging Tennessee's calculation of retaliatory tax on foreign insurance companies. The insurance companies disputed the inclusion of six New York workers’ compensation surcharges in the tax calculation, arguing they were passed on to policyholders and not directly imposed on the insurers. The Tennessee Claims Commission initially ruled in favor of the state. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee found that four of the six surcharges should be included in the retaliatory tax calculation, while two (Fire Insurance Fee and Motor Vehicle Law Enforcement/Theft Fund Charges) should not, as they constituted a direct "pass-through" to policyholders. The court also rejected the claimants' constitutional challenges based on due process, Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Full Faith and Credit, Equal Protection, Commerce Clause, and Uniformity Clause.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance TaxationWorkers' Compensation SurchargesStatutory InterpretationTax Refund ClaimsConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual Protection ClauseFull Faith and CreditCommerce Clause
References
32
Case No. M2009-00915-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2010

John Doe v. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., as Attorney General for State of Tennessee

This case addresses John Doe's constitutional challenge against the retroactive application of the Tennessee Sexual Offender Registration, Verification, and Tracking Act of 2004. Doe, convicted of indecent exposure in 2001, was subsequently classified as a sexual offender under the 2004 Act, leading to mandatory registration and employment restrictions. The trial court upheld the Act's constitutionality, viewing it as a non-punitive regulatory framework. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, ruling that both the registration requirements and the employment restraints, as applied to Doe, were not punitive and therefore did not violate the ex post facto clause of the Tennessee Constitution. The court emphasized the Act's purpose in promoting public safety.

Declaratory JudgmentRetroactive ApplicationSexual Offender RegistrationEx Post Facto LawConstitutional LawEmployment RestrictionsPublic SafetyIndecent ExposureNon-Punitive Regulatory SchemeTennessee Constitution
References
49
Case No. M2023-00812-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2024

Stephanie Garner v. State of Tennessee, and its agency, Tennessee Department of Correction

Plaintiff Stephanie Garner sued the State of Tennessee and its agency, the Tennessee Department of Correction, alleging disability discrimination for refusal to hire. A jury found in Garner's favor, awarding $10,000 for lost wages and $5,000 in compensatory damages. Garner's counsel then sought nearly $700,000 in attorney fees, which the trial court reduced by 25% to $511,620. The Department appealed the fee award, arguing it was excessive and based on an incorrect legal standard. The Court of Appeals vacated the attorney fee award and remanded the case, citing the trial court's failure to provide clear and thorough explanations for its decision based on the factors outlined in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 1.5.

Disability DiscriminationAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionTennessee Disability ActRule of Professional Conduct 1.5Excessive BillingVacate and RemandProportionality ArgumentLegal Standards
References
68
Showing 1-10 of 6,234 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