Skip to main content

David R. Smith v. The Tennessee National Guard

Tenn.June 22, 2018No. M2016-01109-SC-R11-CVCited 13 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Justice Cornelia A. Clark
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

In 2014, the General Assembly enacted a statute waiving Tennessee's sovereign immunity for claims brought against the State pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301 to 4335 ("USERRA"). The waiver of sovereign immunity became effective on July 1, 2014, and applied to USERRA claims "accruing on or after" that date. After passage of the statute, the plaintiff brought a USERRA claim against the defendant, an entity of the State, but his claim was based on facts that occurred prior to August 8, 2011. The trial court dismissed the claim, explaining that the claim accrued prior to July 1, 2014, and remained barred by sovereign immunity. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the claim accrued on July 1, 2014, when the plaintiff gained a judicial remedy by the enactment of the statute waiving sovereign immunity. We conclude that the claim accrued prior to July 1, 2014, and remains barred by sovereign immunity. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** David Smith sued the Tennessee National Guard under a federal law called USERRA, which protects military service members from employment discrimination when they return from duty. Smith claimed his employer violated his rights as a service member. **What the Court Decided** The court dismissed Smith's case. The key issue was timing. In 2014, Tennessee passed a law allowing people to sue the state for USERRA violations, but this law only applied to violations that happened on or after July 1, 2014. Since Smith's alleged violations occurred before that date, he couldn't use this new law to sue the state. The court ruled that Tennessee still had "sovereign immunity" (protection from lawsuits) for violations that happened before the law changed. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows how important timing can be in employment law cases. Workers need to understand that changes in state laws might not apply to past events. For military service members specifically, this highlights that while federal USERRA protections exist, your ability to actually sue a state employer depends on whether that state has waived its immunity from lawsuits. Workers should act quickly when they believe their rights have been violated and seek legal guidance about applicable deadlines and laws.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Derinda Carr v. Windham Professionals, Inc.
Tenn.Apr 2022

Appellant Derinda Carr challenges the trial court's finding her neck injury did not arise primarily "out of and in the course and scope of' her employment. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We agree with the trial court and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Win
Bethany Shelton v. Hobbs Enterprises, LLC
Tenn.Sep 2021

Bethany Shelton ("Employee") filed a petition for benefit determination against Hobbs Enterprises, LLC ("Employer") alleging an injury to her right shoulder suffered in a work- related accident on August 26, 2017. She sought temporary total, permanent partial, and continued medical benefits. Following the issuance of a dispute certification notice, Employer moved for summary judgment on the basis the only medical testimony, from the Employee's treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Sean Kaminsky, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish causation. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims (the "trial court") denied the motion and denied Employer's motion to reconsider. Employer sought an expedited appeal before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, but then sought and was granted a dismissal of that appeal. A trial was held, after which the trial court denied Employee's claim on the ground she had failed to meet her burden to establish her right shoulder injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Employer. Employee filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. She appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims.

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.