The dissenting opinion emphasizes that the primary issue for the Court of Appeals is whether the trial court erred in not directing a verdict for Swift Transportation or granting them a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It clarifies that directed verdicts under Tennessee law are only appropriate when reasonable minds cannot differ on the evidence's conclusions. Even when facts are uncontested, a jury should retain the case if reasonable individuals could reach different conclusions. The appellate court does not weigh evidence or assess witness credibility but reviews it favorably for the opponent of the motion, discarding contrary evidence. If any material fact is disputed or there is ambiguity in conclusions from the evidence, the motion must be denied. Additionally, the dissent addresses the retaliatory discharge cause of action, which serves as an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine in Tennessee, originally established to protect employees from termination that violates public policy. The exception aims to penalize employers who retaliate against employees for refusing to engage in illegal activities or actions against clear state policy.
The cause of action aims to protect the public interest by preventing the retaliatory discharge of employees who report or refuse to engage in unlawful activities. According to T.C.A. 50-1-304, at-will employees cannot be terminated solely for such actions, reflecting state public policy. This exception is limited and applies only under specific circumstances where public policy confers implicit rights on employees, preventing them from facing the dilemma of choosing between their jobs and reporting illegal activities.
Franklin claims retaliatory discharge for refusing to drive a truck without the original IRP cab card, asserting violations under both common law and the Tennessee Public Protection Act. The latter stipulates that employees cannot be discharged solely for refusing to engage in or remaining silent about illegal activities, which are defined as violations of state or federal law or regulations aimed at public safety.
To succeed under the Tennessee Public Protection Act, Franklin must prove:
1) his employment status with Swift;
2) his refusal to engage in illegal activities;
3) his termination;
4) a direct causal link between his refusal and his termination.
For a common law claim, he must establish:
1) an employment-at-will relationship;
2) his discharge;
3) that the discharge was due to exercising a right or acting against public policy;
4) that his protected actions were a substantial factor in the discharge decision.
The distinction between the two claims lies in the causation standard: the statutory claim requires the employee's action to be the sole reason for discharge, while the common law claim only requires it to be a substantial factor. It is agreed that Franklin was an employee of Swift and was terminated for refusing to drive the truck lacking the original IRP cab card, which is necessary for operating commercial vehicles legally in Tennessee.
T.C.A. 55-4-108(a) mandates that vehicle owners carry either the original or a copy of the certificate of registration in their vehicles. However, the Tennessee Department of Safety regulations require that for vehicles registered under the International Registration Plan (IRP), the original cab card must be present in the vehicle during operation. Franklin received guidance from Dora Griffin, head of Swift’s permit department, who emphasized the necessity of keeping the original cab card in the truck, as copies may not be accepted by state officers, potentially leading to fines. Griffin, with over ten years of experience, confirmed that operating without an original cab card was illegal. Franklin believed he would violate the law if he drove the truck without this document, supported by Griffin's testimony, which established reasonable cause for his belief. The Tennessee Supreme Court's ruling in Mason v. Seaton protects employees who report potential violations in good faith. Although the statute allows for a copy of the registration certificate, the specific regulation regarding the cab card necessitates the original, reflecting a public policy against participating in illegal activities in the workplace. Administrative regulations have the same legal force as statutes in Tennessee. Allowing employers to dismiss employees for refusing to violate these regulations undermines legislative authority. The evidence supports Franklin's claim of retaliatory discharge, leading to the affirmation of the jury's verdict in his favor.
