Samuel R. Adams v. Margaret C. Culpepper - Concurring

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedJuly 2, 1997
Docket03A01-9701-CH-00017
StatusPublished

This text of Samuel R. Adams v. Margaret C. Culpepper - Concurring (Samuel R. Adams v. Margaret C. Culpepper - 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
Samuel R. Adams v. Margaret C. Culpepper - Concurring, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

FILED July 2, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk SAMUEL R. ADAMS, e t a l . , ) KNOX CHANCERY ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9701- CH- 00017 Pe t i t i one r s - Appe l l a nt s , ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. SHARON BELL ) CHANCELLOR ) ) ) ) ) MARGARET C. CULPEPPER, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED Co mmi s s i one r of Te nne s s e e ) De p a r t me nt of Empl oyme nt ) Se c u r i t y, a nd TENNESSEE VALLEY ) AUTHORI TY, ) ) Re s ponde nt s - Appe l l e e s )

SAM G. SM TH, J R. , M I oor e & Smi t h, P. C. , Knoxvi l l e f or Appe l l a nt s .

EDW ARD S. CHRI STENBURY, Ge ne r a l Couns e l , ROBERT C. GLI NSKI , As s i s t a nt Ge ne r a l Couns e l , BRENT R. M ARQUAND a nd RI CHARD E. RI GGS, Kn o x v i l l e , f or De f e nda nt , Te nne s s e e Va l l e y Aut hor i t y.

J OHN KNOX W ALKUP, At t or ne y Ge n e r a l a nd Re por t e r , a nd KI MBERLY M . FRAYN, As s i s t a nt At t or ne y Ge ne r a l , Na s hvi l l e , f or Te nne s s e e De p a r t me nt of Empl oyme nt Se c ur i t y. O P I N I O N1

M M r a y, J . c ur

Thi s i s a n a ppe a l f r om a j udgme nt of t he Cha nc e r y Cou r t

of Kn o x Count y, a f f i r mi ng t he de c i s i on of The De pa r t me nt of

Emp l o y me nt Se c ur i t y Boa r d of Re vi e w i n de nyi ng a l l t he a ppe l l a n t s

u n e mp l o yme nt c ompe ns a t i on be ne f i t s . W a f f i r m t he j udgme nt of t h e e

t r i a l c our t .

Si mpl y s t a t e d, t he a ppe l l a nt s he r e vol unt a r i l y a c c e pt e d a n

i nc e n t i ve p a c ka ge t o t e r mi na t e t h e i r e mpl oyme nt by t he Te nne s s e e

Va l l e y Aut hor i t y ( TVA) . The pa c ka ge ba s i c a l l y c ons i s t e d o f a

c h o i c e b y t he i ndi vi dua l e mpl oye e of e i t he r $1, 000. 00 pe r ye a r f o r

e a c h y e a r of e mpl oyme nt , wi t h a mi ni mum of $15, 000. 00, or a l u mp

s u m p a y me nt of s i x mont hs s a l a r y or t hr e e ye a r s a dde d t o t he i r

ye a r s of s e r vi c e f or t he pur pos e of c a l c ul a t i on r e t i r e me n t

be ne f i t s . The a ppe l l a nt s we r e a dvi s e d t ha t i f t he y a c c e pt e d e i t h e r

o f t h e " e a r l y out " i nc e nt i ve pa c ka ge s , t ha t TVA woul d c ont e s t a n y

c l a i m ma de f or une mpl oy me nt c ompe ns a t i on. Not wi t hs t a ndi ng, t he

a pp e l l a nt s f i l e d a ppl i c a t i ons f or une mpl oyme nt be ne f i t s . Be ne f i t s

we r e d e ni e d by t he Te nne s s e e De pa r t me nt of Empl oyme nt Se c ur i t y a t

t he a d mi ni s t r a t i ve l e ve l . An a ppe a l wa s t i me l y ma de to t he

1 Th e r e a r e e i g h t y - n i n e a p p e l l a n t s i n t h i s c a s e . A c o mp l e t e l i s t i s a t t a c he d t o t h i s o p i n i o n a s Ap p e n d i x A.

2 Ch a nc e r y Cour t f or Knox Co unt y. The c ha nc e r y c our t a f f i r me d t h e

d e n i a l of be ne f i t s a nd t hi s a ppe a l r e s ul t e d.

Th e s ol e i s s ue pr e s e nt e d f or r e vi e w i s " whe t he r t he de c i s i o n

o f t h e De pa r t me nt of Empl oyme nt Se c ur i t y Boa r d of Re vi e w, a f f i r me d

b y t he c ha nc e r y c our t , wa s i n e r r or by f i ndi ng t ha t T. C. A. Se c t i on

5 0 - 7 - 3 0 3( c ) ( 1) wa s i na ppl i c a bl e t o t he f a c t s of t hi s c a s e . . . . "

Fi r s t , we s houl d not e our s t a nda r d of r e vi e w. Our s t a nda r d o f

r e vi e w i s gove r ne d by T. C. A. § 50- 7- 304( I ) , whi c h a l l ows c our t s t o

r e ve r s e , r e ma nd, or modi f y t he de c i s i on of t he Boa r d of Re vi e w o n l y

i f t h e d e c i s i on i s uns uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l a nd ma t e r i a l e vi de n c e

i n l i g h t of t he e nt i r e r e c or d.

On a ppe a l , t hi s c our t mus t a l s o de t e r mi ne whe t he r t he r e i s s ubs t a nt i a l a nd ma t e r i a l e vi de nc e t o s uppor t t he f i ndi ngs of f a c t ma de by t he l owe r t r i buna l . J ohns on v. Bi bl e , 707 S. W 2d 510, 512 ( Te nn. App. 1985) . Subs t a nt i a l . a nd ma t e r i a l e vi de nc e ha s b e e n d e f i ne d a s " ' s uc h r e l e va nt e v i de nc e a s a r e a s ona bl e mi nd mi ght a c c e pt t o s uppor t a r a t i ona l c onc l us i on a nd s uc h a s t o f ur ni s h a r e a s ona bl y s o und ba s i s f or t he a c t i ons unde r c ons i de r a t i on. ' " So ut he r n Ry. Co. v. St a t e Bd. Of Equa l i z a t i on , 682 S. W 2d . 1 9 6, 199 ( Te nn. 1984) ( quot i ng Pa c e v. Ga r ba ge Di s t . , 5 4 Te nn. App. 263, 390 S. W 2d 461, 463 ( Te nn. App. 1965) ) . . I f t he r e c or d c ont a i ns s uc h e vi de nc e , r e vi e w by t hi s c o ur t i s c onf i ne d t o whe t he r t he l owe r t r i buna l e r r e d whe n i t a ppl i e d t he l a w t o t he f a c t s f ound, t h a t i s , r e vi e w i s c onf i ne d t o a de novo r e vi e w a s t o que s t i ons of l a w. Pe r r yma n v. Bi bl e , 653 S. W 2d 424, 429 ( Te nn. App. . 1 9 83) ; I r vi n v. Bi nkl e y, 577 S. W 2d 677, 678 ( Te nn. App. . 1 9 78) .

Pa y n e v . Cul pe ppe r , 1997 Te nn. App. , LEXI S 25.

3 The di s pos i t i ve que s t i on he r e is whe t he r T. C. A. § 50- 7-

3 0 3 ( c ) ( 1) i s a ppl i c a bl e t o t he f a c t s of t hi s c a s e . T. C. A. § 50 - 7 -

3 0 3 ( c ) ( 1) (in ef f ect at t he t i me s unde r c ons i de r a t i on he r e )

p r o v i d e d a s f ol l ows :

( c ) Qua l i f i c a t i ons . Not wi t hs t a ndi ng a ny ot he r pr ovi s i on o f l a w t o t he c ont r a r y:

( 1) Be ne f i t s s ha l l not be de ni e d unde r t hi s c ha pt e r t o a ny ot he r wi s e e l i gi bl e c l a i ma nt f or s e pa r a t i on f r om e mpl oyme nt pur s ua nt t o a l a bor - ma na ge me nt c ont r a c t or a g r e e me nt , or pur s ua nt t o a n e s t a b- l i s he d e mpl oye r pl a n, pr ogr a m, pol i c y, l a yof f or r ecal l whi c h pe r mi t s t he c l a i ma nt ( e mpl oye e ) , be c aus e of l ac k of wor k, t o a c c e pt a s e pa r a t i on f r om e mpl oyme nt . Howe ve r , be ne f i t s s ha l l be de ni e d a c l a i ma nt f or s e pa r a t i on f r om e mpl oyme nt r e s ul t i ng f r om t he c l a i ma nt ' s a c c e pt a nc e of a n e mpl oye r ' s pr ogr a m whi c h pr ovi de s mone t a r y i nc e nt i ve s t o e mpl oye e s f or vol unt a r i l y t e r mi na t i ng t he i r e mpl oy- me nt . ( Empha s i s a dde d) .

I n t he f i na l a na l ys i s , t he que s t i on be c ome s a que s t i on o f

f act . , i . e. , whe t he r t he c l a i ma nt s we r e of f e r e d t he i nc e nt i v e

p a c ka ge b e c a us e of " l a c k o f wor k. " I f t h e i nc e nt i ve pa c ka ge wa s

o f f e r e d be c a us e of " l a c k of wor k" t he c l a i ma nt s a r e e nt i t l e d t o

u n e mp l o yme nt be ne f i t s . Ot he r wi s e , t he y a r e not .

The t r i al c our t d e t e r mi ne d, a nd we a gr e e , t ha t t he r e wa s

s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e in t he r e c or d to de mons t r a t e t ha t t he

c l a i ma n t s l e f t t he i r e mpl oyme nt vol unt a r i l y t o r e c e i ve t he " e a r l y

o u t " i n c e nt i ve s . The t r i a l c our t f ur t he r f ound t ha t t he r e wa s n o

l a c k of wor k a t t he t i me t he c l a i ma nt s r e s i gne d. The r e c or d

4 c l e a r l y r e f l e c t s t ha t a t t he t i me t he c l a i ma nt s a c c e pt e d t he e a r l y -

o u t i n c e nt i ve pa c ka ge , t he y ha d t he opt i on of wor ki ng. The y we r e

g u a r a n t e e d wor k t hr ough t he f i s c a l ye a r 1995, e ve n t hough s ome o f

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

Related

Pace v. Garbage Disposal District of Washington County
390 S.W.2d 461 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1965)
Perryman v. Bible
653 S.W.2d 424 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1983)
Irvin v. Binkley
577 S.W.2d 677 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1978)
Johnson v. Bible
707 S.W.2d 510 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Samuel R. Adams v. Margaret C. Culpepper - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-r-adams-v-margaret-c-culpepper-concurring-tennctapp-1997.