Court Rulings

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 personal injury employer workers' compensation immunity. Plaintiff brought this action after suffering an injury while working at defendant's hospital. Plaintiff was employed by a temporary staffing agency and was placed at defendant's hospital by the agency. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability under the Workers' Compensation Act. Defendant argued that it qualified as plaintiff's "employer" under the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act because it supervised plaintiff and controlled plaintiff's work. Plaintiff did not dispute that defendant controlled her work and supervised her, but argued that defendant should not be immune under the Workers' Compensation Act. The court granted summary judgment to defendant. The court found that, under controlling law, defendant was entitled to immunity under the Workers' Compensation Act due to the degree of supervision and control it exercised over plaintiff's work.

In this post-divorce dispute, Father petitioned to modify custody, and Mother filed a counter-petition to modify child support. At trial, both parents agreed to specific modifications to the parenting plan and to set child support according to the Child Support Guidelines. But they could not agree on a location for exchanging the children. After hearing limited testimony from the parents, the court chose an exchange location, set child support, and approved the agreed parenting plan. Unhappy with aspects of the new plan, Father filed a motion to alter or amend or for a new trial. The court denied Father's motion but granted Mother's motion to recalculate child support to reflect the parents' actual parenting time. Because the court's order approving the modified plan does not comply with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 and the record lacks a sufficient basis to support a best interest determination, we vacate the modification of the parenting plan and remand for the court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing on whether modification of the parenting plan is in the children's best interest and enter an order compliant with Rule 52.01. In all other respects, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

The facts before the court on appeal depend upon the procedural posture of the case. John Riebsame, a former employee of Holland Enterprises ("Holland"), filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee on June 18, 2018, against Bradley Schemel, the vice president of Holland, a trucking company headquartered in Mapleton, North Dakota. On July 20, 2018, Mr. Schemel filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(2) and (4) for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. With his motion, Mr. Schemel submitted his own affidavit, the contents of which will be detailed as relevant below.

The plaintiff, a former tenured schoolteacher, sued the Williamson County Board of Education and three administrators alleging that she was forced to resign after the defendants "bullied, stalked, intimidated, and defamed" her during the 2015–2016 school year. She asserted claims for wrongful termination, breach of contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed all of the claims asserted in the original complaint pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted but permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint to revise and restate her claims for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Following discovery, the court summarily dismissed the two remaining claims as asserted in the amended complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) dismissal of her wrongful termination and negligence claims, and the summary dismissal of her claims for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We affirm the trial court's determination the plaintiff's negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are barred by the Governmental Tort Liability Act and Teachers' Tenure Act, respectively. We have also determined that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence of a compensable injury in her claim for breach of contract. As for the plaintiff's claim of wrongful termination, we respectfully disagree with the trial court's determination that the doctrine of constructive discharge is inapplicable to wrongful termination claims under the Teachers' Tenure Act. Therefore, we reverse the dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful termination claim and remand this claim for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.