You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Melissa Suzanne Dew v. ProTemp

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2000-01750-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; January 4, 2001; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appeal by an employee against a temporary employment agency, Pro-Temp, regarding a claim of retaliatory discharge following her termination. The employee alleged that her removal from Pro-Temp was in retaliation for filing a worker’s compensation claim after a work-related injury at a client company. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment to Pro-Temp, concluding there were no genuine issues of material fact. The plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between her worker’s compensation claim and her termination, nor did she demonstrate that her employment with Pro-Temp was terminated, as she was merely removed from the client assignment due to performance issues. The court found that Pro-Temp offered other job assignments, and the plaintiff eventually secured a position with another company, DDD. Her appeal focused on the retaliatory discharge claims against Pro-Temp, excluding the client company. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, applying Tennessee summary judgment standards, and determined that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof required to support her claim. Consequently, the appeal costs were charged to the plaintiff, and the case was remanded for any necessary further proceedings.

Legal Issues Addressed

Burden of Proof and Causation in Retaliatory Discharge

Application: The court found that the defendant successfully negated two essential elements of the plaintiff's claim: termination of employment and causation related to the worker’s compensation claim.

Reasoning: The defendant successfully negated two essential elements: the termination of the plaintiff's employment and the assertion that the worker’s compensation claim was a substantial factor in the termination.

Retaliatory Discharge Claims Under Tennessee Law

Application: The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliatory discharge as she could not demonstrate that her worker’s compensation claim was a substantial factor in her termination.

Reasoning: To establish a claim of retaliatory discharge, an employee must prove four elements: (1) employment status at the time of injury, (2) a filed worker’s compensation claim, (3) termination of employment, and (4) that the compensation claim was a substantial factor in the termination decision.

Summary Judgment Standards in Tennessee

Application: The court affirmed the summary judgment, noting that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the termination of employment and the causation related to the worker's compensation claim.

Reasoning: The Trial Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiff did not prove her employment was terminated by Defendant or establish a causal link between her worker’s compensation claim and her termination from Eagle Bend.