Mark McCain v. Airport Honda and Bob Rutherford
This text of Mark McCain v. Airport Honda and Bob Rutherford (Mark McCain v. Airport Honda and Bob Rutherford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN SECTI ON FILED October 2, 1996
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk MARK M CAI N, c ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9603- CV- 00099 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt , ) BLOUNT LAW ) v. ) HON. W DALE YOUNG, . ) J UDGE, AI RPORT HONDA a nd BOB ) RUTHERFORD, ) AFFI RMED ) AND De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s . ) REMANDED
KEVI N W SHEPHERD, M r yvi l l e , f or Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt . . a
BEECHER A. BARTLETT, J R. , a nd ADRI ENNE L. ANDERSON, KRAM ER, RAYSON, LEAKE, RODGERS & M ORGAN, Knoxvi l l e , f or De f e nda nt s - Ap p e l l e e s .
O P I N I O N
Fr a nks . J .
I n t hi s a c t i on a s ki ng da ma ge s f or a l l e ge d
r e t a l i a t or y di s c ha r ge , t he Tr i a l Cour t gr a nt e d e mpl oye r
s u mma r y j udgme nt , a nd pl a i nt i f f ha s a ppe a l e d. W a f f i r m. e
Pl a i nt i f f wa s hi r e d by Ai r por t Honda a s a us e d c a r
s a l e s ma n i n Fe br ua r y of 1994. Hi s i mme di a t e s upe r vi s or wa s
d e f e n d a nt Bob Rut he r f or d. Pl a i nt i f f t e s t i f i e d i n hi s
d e p o s i t i on t ha t he di s c o ve r e d t ha t f e l l ow e mpl oye e s we r e
f o r g i n g c us t ome r s ’ na me s t o c ont r a c t s f or s e r vi c e s t he y di d n o t r e que s t . He r e por t e d t hi s t o t he ge ne r a l ma na ge r f or
Ai r p o r t Honda , a nd t o J ohn St i dha m, a n a s s i s t a nt us e d c a r
ma n a g e r . Appr oxi ma t e l y s i x we e ks a f t e r pl a i nt i f f r e por t e d t h e
f o r g e r i e s , he wa s t e r mi na t e d by Rut he r f or d.
Pl a i nt i f f i ns i s t s t he r e i s a di s put e d i s s ue of
ma t e r i a l f a c t a nd t he gr a nt i ng of s umma r y j udgme nt wa s i n
e r r or .
A t r i a l c our t s houl d gr a nt s umma r y j udgme nt onl y i f
t h e mo va nt de mons t r a t e s t he r e a r e no ge nui ne i s s ue s of
ma t e r i a l f a c t a nd t ha t t he movi ng pa r t y i s e nt i t l e d t o
j ud g me nt a s a ma t t e r o f l a w. T. R. C. P. Rul e 56. 03. The c ou r t
mu s t t a ke t he s t r onge s t l e gi t i ma t e vi e w of t he e vi de nc e i n
f a v o r of t he nonmovi ng pa r t y, a l l ow a l l r e a s ona bl e i nf e r e nc e s
i n f a v or of t ha t pa r t y, a nd di s c a r d a l l c ount e r va i l i ng
e vi d e nc e . By r d v . Hal l , 847 S. W 2d 208 ( Te nn. 1993) . .
The r e qui s i t e e l e me nt s of a r e t a l i a t or y di s c ha r ge
a r e s e t f or t h i n Ande r s on v . St andar d Re gi s t e r Co. :
( 1) The pl a i nt i f f wa s a n e mpl oye e of t he de f e nda n t a t t he t i me o f t he i nj ur y; ( 2) t he pl a i nt i f f ma de a c l a i m a ga i ns t t he de f e nda nt f or wor ke r s ’ c ompe ns a t i on be ne f i t s ; ( 3) t he de f e nda nt t e r mi na t e d t he pl a i nt i f f ’ s e mpl oyme nt ; a nd ( 4) t he c l a i m f or wor ke r s ’ c ompe ns a t i on be ne f i t s wa s a s ubs t a nt i a l f a c t or i n t he e mpl oye r ’ s mot i va t i on t o t e r mi na t e t he e mpl oye e ’ s e mp l oyme nt .
8 5 7 S. W 2d 555, 558 ( Te nn. 1993) . .
I n t hi s c a s e , t he Tr i a l Cour t c onc l ude d t he
p l a i nt i f f f a i l e d t o s how t he f our t h e l e me nt , a c a us a l
c o n n e c t i on be t we e n t he r e por t i ng of t he a l l e ge d f or ge r i e s a n d
h i s d i s mi s s a l . Al t houg h t he e l e me nt s i n Ande r s on i nvol ve a
wo r k e r s ’ c ompe ns a t i on c a s e , t he y a r e i n a c c or d wi t h t he
r e q u i r e me nt s t ha t ha ve be e n e nunc i a t e d f or ot he r t ype s of
2 c o mmo n- l a w r e t a l i a t or y di s c ha r ge s ui t s . Se e , e . g. , Re y nol d s
v . Oz a r k M or Li ne s , I nc . , 887 S. W 2d 822, 825 ( Te nn. 1994) . ot .
The pl a i nt i f f be a r s t he bur de n of s howi ng t he c a u s a l
r e l a t i ons hi p, Ande r s on. I n t hi s c a s e , t he onl y e vi de nc e
l i n k i ng t he di s mi s s a l a nd t he ?whi s t l e bl owi ng? wa s pl a i nt i f f ’ s
r e p o r t i ng t he a l l e ge d f or ge r y t o a s upe r vi s or a nd hi s
t e r mi n a t i on f r om t he e mpl oyme nt s i x we e ks l a t e r .
Evi de nc e of c a us a t i on r e qui r e s mor e t ha n t he f a c t s
s h o wi n g e mpl oyme nt , t he e xe r c i s e of r i ght s , a nd a s ubs e que n t
d i s c h a r ge . Thomas on v . Be t t e r - Bi l t Al umi num Pr oduc t s , I nc . ,
8 3 1 S. W 2d 291, 293 ( Te nn. App. 1992) . . I t r e qui r e s di r e c t
e vi d e nc e or c ompe l l i ng c i r c ums t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . I d. Al s o s e e
M s k al v . Fi r s t Te nne s s e e Bank , 810 S. W 2d 509 ( Te nn. App. o .
1991) . The pl a i nt i f f ’ s me r e ?be l i e f or unde r s t a ndi ng? of why
h e wa s di s mi s s e d, i s not s uf f i c i e nt t o c r e a t e a ge nui ne i s s u e
o f ma t e r i a l f a c t . Ne ws om v . Te x t r on Ae r os t r uc t ur e s , 924
S. W 2 d 87 ( Te nn. App. 1995) . . The Te nne s s e e Supr e me Cour t h a s
r e j e c t e d t he i de a t ha t a s hor t l e ngt h of t i me be t we e n t he
i nc i de nt a nd t he d i s mi s s a l c ons t i t ut e s a pr i ma f ac i e s howi n g
o f r e t a l i a t i on. Conat s e r v . Cl ar k s v i l l e Coc a- Col a, 920 S. W 2 d .
6 4 6 ( Te nn. 1995) ( di s mi s s a l t hr e e da ys a f t e r r e t ur ni ng t o wo r k
f r o m i nj ur y r e c upe r a t i o n wa s i ns uf f i c i e nt t o s how c a us a l
c o n n e c t i on) .
W l e t he Con at s e r c our t quot e d a t r e a t i s e s t a t i ng hi
?p r o x i mi t y i n t i me wi t hout e vi de nc e of s a t i s f a c t or y j ob
p e r f o r ma nc e doe s not ma ke a pr i ma f ac i e c a s e , ? s ome e vi de nc e
o f p l a i nt i f f ’ s s a t i s f a c t or y j ob pe r f or ma nc e i s not c ompe l l i n g
c i r c ums t a nt i a l e vi de nc e of t he c a us a l c onne c t i on.
Ac c o r d i ngl y, we c onc l ude t he Tr i a l Cour t di d not e r r i n
3 g r a n t i ng s umma r y j udgme nt t o de f e nda nt .
Pl a i nt i f f ur ge s t ha t t he Tr i a l Cour t s houl d ha ve
g r a n t e d hi s mot i on f or a c ont i nua nc e . The mot i on wa s ma de o n
t h e d a t e of t he he a r i ng f or s umma r y j udgme nt . The pl a i nt i f f
a r g u e s t he mot i on s houl d ha ve be e n gr a nt e d, be c a us e unt i l t h e
mo t i o n f or s umma r y j udgme nt wa s f i l e d, de f e nda nt ha d not
d e l i v e r e d d i s c ove r y ma t e r i a l s r e que s t e d.
The t r i a l c our t ha s br oa d di s c r e t i on i n de t e r mi ni ng
wh e t h e r t o gr a nt a r e que s t f or c ont i nua nc e . Bar be r and
M M r r y , I nc . V. Top- Fl i t e De v e l opme nt Cor por at i on, I nc . , 7 2 0 c u
S. W 2 d 469, 471 ( Te nn. App. 1986) . . I n or de r t o de mons t r a t e a n
a b u s e of di s c r e t i on, a pa r t y mus t s how s ome pr e j udi c e or
s u r p r i s e whi c h a r i s e s o ut of t he t r i a l c our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o
g r a n t a c ont i nua nc e . Commi s s i one r of De par t me nt of
Tr a n s por t at i on v . Hal l , 635 S. W 2d 110 ( Te nn. 1982) . . M t of os
t h e l a t e f i l e d di s c ove r y de a l t wi t h pr ovi ng t he f or ge r y, a n
a l l e g a t i on whi c h wa s t o be a s s ume d t r ue f or t he pur pos e s of
t h e s u mma r y j udgme nt he a r i ng.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Mark McCain v. Airport Honda and Bob Rutherford, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-mccain-v-airport-honda-and-bob-rutherford-tennctapp-1996.