Skip to main content

Amy Frogge v. Shawn Joseph

Tenn. Ct. App.June 20, 2022No. M2020-01422-COA-R3-CV
RemandedShawn Joseph

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

Three members of a school board filed this lawsuit after the school board passed a resolution approving a severance agreement with the director of schools that contained a non-disparagement clause preventing the individual school board members from expressing even truthful criticism of the director of schools. The plaintiff board members named as defendants the school board and the director of schools. They sought a declaratory judgment that the non-disparagement clause violated their free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution, was unconstitutionally overbroad, and was unenforceable as against the public policy of the State of Tennessee. They also sought a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the non-disparagement clause and an award of their attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on numerous alternative grounds. The defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of standing, and lack of ripeness. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss and granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The trial court found that the non-disparagement clause was unenforceable and unconstitutional on several grounds. It permanently enjoined enforcement of the clause and awarded the plaintiffs their attorney fees. The defendants appeal, arguing that the case should have been dismissed for lack of standing and ripeness. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Three school board members sued their own school board and the school district director after the board approved a severance agreement containing a controversial clause. This "non-disparagement" clause would have prevented the individual board members from making any negative comments about the director, even if those comments were completely truthful. The board members argued this violated their free speech rights as elected officials. **What the Court Decided** The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further review (called a "remand"). This means the court didn't make a final decision on whether the non-disparagement clause was legal or not. Instead, they determined that more legal proceedings were needed to properly resolve the dispute. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case highlights an important issue about non-disparagement clauses in employment agreements. These clauses are increasingly common in severance packages and can prevent workers from speaking truthfully about their former employers, even in cases of wrongdoing. While this specific case involves elected officials, the outcome could influence how courts view similar restrictions on employees' speech rights. Workers should carefully review any agreements containing such clauses and understand their potential impact on future employment opportunities and ability to speak about workplace issues.

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

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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.