Patricia Ann Wolfe, Bette L. Roberts, Patricia Pelton, Odie L. Mann, Boyd Stubblefield, and Richard G. Ray v. The University of Tennessee and the University of Tennessee Space Institute - Concurring

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Patricia Ann Wolfe, Bette L. Roberts, Patricia Pelton, Odie L. Mann, Boyd Stubblefield, and Richard G. Ray v. The University of Tennessee and the University of Tennessee Space Institute - Concurring

DecidedDecember 3, 2001

Docket01A01-9611-CH-00514

StatusPublished

This text of Patricia Ann Wolfe, Bette L. Roberts, Patricia Pelton, Odie L. Mann, Boyd Stubblefield, and Richard G. Ray v. The University of Tennessee and the University of Tennessee Space Institute - Concurring (Patricia Ann Wolfe, Bette L. Roberts, Patricia Pelton, Odie L. Mann, Boyd Stubblefield, and Richard G. Ray v. The University of Tennessee and the University of Tennessee Space Institute - Concurring) 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.

Bluebook

Patricia Ann Wolfe, Bette L. Roberts, Patricia Pelton, Odie L. Mann, Boyd Stubblefield, and Richard G. Ray v. The University of Tennessee and the University of Tennessee Space Institute - Concurring, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

PATRICIA ANN WOLFE, ) BETTE L. ROBERTS, ) PATRICIA PELTON, ) ODIE L. MANN, ) BOYD STUBBLEFIELD, ) and RICHARD G. RAY, ) ) Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) ) Franklin Chancery ) No. 14-240 VS. ) ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9611-CH-00514 THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE ) and THE UNIVERSITY OF ) TENNESSEE SPACE INSTITUTE, ) ) Defendants/Appellees. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur with the results of the Court’s opinion. Based on my independent review of the evidence both in support of and in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, I have determined that the six plaintiffs have not produced evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the reasons given by the University of Tennessee Space Institute for the adverse employment actions taken against each of the plaintiffs were pretextual or that the employment actions were taken for prohibited reasons.

_____________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

PATRICIA ANN WOLFE, ) BETTE L. ROBERTS, ) PATRICIA PELTON, ) ODIE L. MANN, ) BOYD STUBBLEFIELD, ) and RICHARD G. RAY, ) ) Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) ) Franklin Chancery ) No. 14-240 VS. ) ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9611-CH-00514 THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE ) and THE UNIVERSITY OF ) TENNESSEE SPACE INSTITUTE, ) ) Defendants/Appellees. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur with the results of the Court’s opinion. Based on my independent review of the evidence both in support of and in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, I have determined that the six plaintiffs have not produced evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the reasons given by the University of Tennessee Space Institute for the adverse employment actions taken against each of the plaintiffs were pretextual or that the employment actions were taken for prohibited reasons.

_____________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Patricia Ann Wolfe, Bette L. Roberts, Patricia Pelton, Odie L. Mann, Boyd Stubblefield, and Richard G. Ray v. The University of Tennessee and the University of Tennessee Space Institute - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patricia-ann-wolfe-bette-l-roberts-patricia-pelton-odie-l-mann-boyd-tennctapp-2001.