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. 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. E2022-01058-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2025

Heather Smith v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee (Concurring)

This is a concurring opinion from the Supreme Court of Tennessee concerning an appeal by permission in the case of Heather Smith v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee. Justice Sarah K. Campbell joins the majority in holding that the right to petition under the Tennessee Constitution does not provide a basis for retaliatory discharge claims against private employers. The opinion traces the history of the employment-at-will doctrine, detailing its exceptions carved out by courts for public policy reasons, such as workers' compensation. Justice Campbell suggests that the judiciary should reconsider its role in creating these exceptions, arguing that the legislature is better equipped to define public policy in employment law.

Employment-at-will doctrineRetaliatory dischargePublic policy exceptionTennessee ConstitutionRight to petitionWorkers' compensationJudicial activismLegislative authorityStatutory interpretationCommon law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Greater Chattanooga Public Television Corp.

This Tennessee Court of Appeals opinion addresses an appeal from summary judgments granted to the defendant, Greater Chattanooga Public Television Corporation (WTCI), in an age discrimination and retaliatory discharge lawsuit. Plaintiffs Kelly Williams, Robert Williams, Earlynn Schubert, Cynthia Lowry, and Barbara Dadswell alleged age-based discrimination and wrongful termination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Kelly Williams, Robert Williams, and Earlynn Schubert on their age discrimination claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the employer's stated reasons for termination. For Barbara Dadswell, the Court affirmed the summary judgment on her age discrimination claim but reversed and remanded her retaliatory discharge claim, concluding that a jury question existed regarding the reasonableness of her belief that copying a Nielsen Report was an illegal activity violating public policy. The case underscores the standards for summary judgment in employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims under Tennessee law.

Age DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActEmployment LawMcDonnell Douglas TestConstructive DischargeAt-will EmploymentPublic Policy ExceptionBurden Shifting
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

West v. Pratt

This appeal addresses the allocation of compensatory and punitive damages between a liability insurer and an uninsured motorist carrier in Tennessee. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the uninsured motorist carrier for plaintiffs Glenn and Shari West, challenged Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company's, the liability insurer for defendant Horace Pratt, decision to apportion its policy limits between compensatory and punitive damages. State Farm argued this allocation improperly shifted responsibility for punitive damages to them, a result prohibited by Tennessee public policy concerning uninsured motorist coverage. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings, holding that a liability carrier must first satisfy compensatory damage awards to the extent of its limits before applying any funds to punitive damages, unless the policy explicitly states otherwise. This decision underscores the state's public policy against indirectly burdening uninsured motorist carriers with punitive damage obligations.

Allocation of damagesPunitive damagesCompensatory damagesUninsured motorist coverageUnderinsured motorist coverageLiability insuranceInsurance policy limitsPublic policyTennessee lawStatutory interpretation
References
7
Case No. W2008-01832-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2009

Daniel Sanders v. Henry County, Tennessee

Daniel Sanders, a former Henry County employee, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to his employer in a retaliatory discharge claim. Sanders alleged he was terminated for reporting his supervisor, Alvin Misker, for viewing inappropriate, non-work-related content on a county computer, which he believed constituted 'illegal activities' under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Misker's actions, even if a violation of an internal 'use agreement' not applicable county-wide, did not rise to the level of 'illegal activities' that implicate fundamental public policy concerns as required by the whistleblower statute. The court emphasized that the statute is a narrow exception to the employment-at-will doctrine and requires more than an employee's belief that actions were 'wrong' or against 'public policy.'

Retaliatory dischargeWhistleblower statuteEmployment-at-willSummary judgmentIllegal activitiesPublic policyTennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304County employeeWorkplace conductComputer use policy
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Tennessee Life Insurance Co.

Nancy Kway Davis, administratrix of Charles M. Davis's estate, appealed a take-nothing judgment in her suit against Tennessee Life Insurance Company. She sought to recover life insurance proceeds, contending there was no valid beneficiary designation. Charles Davis, an employee of Reading and Bates, was insured under group policies provided by Tennessee Life. Davis had designated his mother, Bessie Carr, as beneficiary in 1966. Although policy 637 was superseded by policy 1264, the jury found that Reading and Bates, authorized by Tennessee Life, issued a certificate for policy 1264 to Charles Davis, naming Bessie Carr as beneficiary. The court found no error in denying Nancy Kway Davis any interest in the proceeds, affirming the judgment that Bessie Carr was the valid beneficiary.

Life InsuranceBeneficiary DesignationGroup Insurance PolicyInsurance ProceedsAdministratrix ClaimCommunity PropertyChose in ActionAppellate ReviewInsurance CertificateEmployer-Provided Insurance
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2006

Lawrence Teachers Ass'n v. Lawrence Public Schools

This case concerns an appeal by the Lawrence Teachers Association (petitioner) challenging the denial of their petition to confirm an arbitration award. The arbitration award mandated Lawrence Public Schools (respondent) to designate members of the petitioner’s bargaining unit to provide special education services outside the school district's geographical boundaries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the petition, concluding the award was unenforceable. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the arbitration award violated public policy as it contravened Education Law former § 3602-c (2). This statute required the school district to contract with the school district where the nonpublic school attended by the pupil was located for such services. The court emphasized that an arbitrator's award cannot stand if it is contrary to well-defined statutory law and public policy.

Arbitration AwardPublic PolicyEducation LawSpecial Education ServicesCollective BargainingStipulationStatutory ViolationAppellate ReviewSchool District ObligationsLabor Dispute
References
4
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Purkey v. American Home Assurance Co.

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed three certified questions from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee concerning the validity of household or family exclusion clauses in automobile insurance liability policies under Tennessee law and public policy. Petitioner Janice W. Purkey argued that these exclusions were void following amendments to the Tennessee Financial Responsibility Act and the abolition of intrafamily tort immunity. However, the Court referenced its prior consistent rulings upholding such clauses and emphasized Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-7-121, which explicitly permits contractual exclusions 'notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary.' The Court concluded that such exclusions do not violate Tennessee law or public policy, thereby answering the first certified question in the negative and declining to address the remaining questions.

Automobile InsuranceLiability CoverageHousehold Exclusion ClauseFamily Exclusion ClauseTennessee LawPublic PolicyFinancial Responsibility ActContract InterpretationIntrafamily Tort ImmunityCertified Questions
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 5,610 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