Discrimination Cases

Limitations agreement contained in an employment application is enforceable as a contract where it is supported by consideration in the form of the employer's promise to review the prospective employee's application.

Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of employer where employee failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact in support of his claims of age discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent retention.

The parties in this case are before the Supreme Court on cross-appeals from a Superior Court judgment following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Matthieu W. Yangambi (plaintiff), on a single claim of employment discrimination based on national origin. The defendants, the Providence School Board and the City of Providence (defendants), have challenged the Superior Court justice's jury instructions on several grounds, and argue that the Superior Court justice: (1) applied an incorrect law concerning evidentiary presumptions in an employment discrimination case (2) improperly weighed the evidence and (3) invaded the province of the jury. The defendants also contend that the Superior Court justice erred when she vacated the jury's finding that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full. The Court declared that, although defendants did not articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for their adverse employment decision, they presented some evidence sufficient to overcome judgment as a matter of law. In regard to the jury instructions, the Court held that Superior Court justice did not err in applying the law of evidentiary presumptions or invade the province of the jury, because the defendants did not satisfy their burden of production. Finally, the Court was of the opinion that the trial justice did not erroneously vacate the jury's finding on mitigation of damages, as the plaintiff applied for many administrative positions within Providence and was not required to seek employment outside of that municipality.

R.C. 4112.14 to successfully assert an age discrimination claim, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she had been replaced by a substantially younger person.

EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS - breach of contract R.C. 3319.17 age discrimination R.C. 4112.14 in an indirect evidence case courts employ a four-part test to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination constructive discharge.

This is the second appeal of this employment discrimination case involving two plaintiffs. In the first appeal, Goree v. United Parcel Service, 490 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. March 23, 2016), this Court reversed the judgment as to one plaintiff and affirmed the judgment as to the other plaintiff, the Appellant in the instant case. On remand, the trial court determined that the specific attorney's fees chargeable to each plaintiff could not be determined and reduced the previous award of attorney's fees and costs by 50%. Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

CIVIL - reverse discrimination Ohio Civil Rights Commission random draw apprenticeship program unlawful practice R.C. 4112 probable cause application of prior federal court decisions manifest imbalance voluntary affirmative action plan prima facie case

Trial court did not err in granting an employer's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and alternative motion for new trial on a former employee's race-based discrimination claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework where the employee admitted to accessing a patient's confidential medical records for a purpose, at least in part, unrelated to patient care and such conduct is a terminable offense under the employer's policies. Judgment affirmed.

Plaintiff Laura Lee Demastus brought this action against her former employer, University Health System, Inc., doing business as the University of Tennessee Medical Center (Employer). After Plaintiff had worked roughly three years as a nurse at the UT Medical Center, Employer suspected that she was illegally diverting medications. When Plaintiff's supervisors confronted her with evidence of several suspicious transactions recorded by the medication monitoring systems, Plaintiff denied doing anything wrong or improper. She, however, could not explain the suspicious transactions. She was terminated shortly thereafter. Plaintiff brought this action under the Tennessee Disabilities Act (TDA), Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103 et seq. (2016), alleging that she was fired solely because Employer perceived her to have the disability of drug addiction. Employer argued that it did not fire her because she was considered a drug addict, but because it thought she was stealing medications. Following discovery, the trial court granted summary judgment, holding that under the undisputed material facts, Plaintiff could not establish that Employer's proffered non-discriminatory reason was a pretext for illegal discrimination. We affirm

The trial court's judgment finding that appellant failed to carry his ultimate burden of demonstrating that the adverse employment action resulted from unlawful discrimination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.