http://www.elinfonet.com/starticles/43 Articles discussing workplace law in Tennessee. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:11:23 EST en-us http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2883 Article: 2883 Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On September 23, 2009, the Tennessee Court of Appeals, in Cummings Incorporated v. Terry J. Dorgan, Jr., No. M2008-00593-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2009), held that a noncompetition agreement signed by an at-will employee, under threat of termination, was enforceable. The appeals court specifically rejected the lower court's holding that the noncompetition agreement was unenforceable because it was not supported by consideration and because it allegedly was signed under duress. Rather, the court of appeals specifically held that the noncompetition agreement was enforceable despite the fact that the at-will employee was threatened with termination for refusing to sign it. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2669 Article: 2669 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Civil litigation practice in Tennessee is going to change on July 1, 2009, which is when new rules on electronic discovery will go into effect. If you or your business store information on a computer or you use e-mail (who doesn't these days), and if you ever find yourself in a lawsuit, the new rules will be very important. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2655 Article: 2655 Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In a ruling handed down March 2, 2009, the Tennessee Court of Appeals determined that a claim of common law retaliatory discharge may be maintained where an employer's termination of an at will employee is substantially motivated by either the employee's refusal to participate in or to remain silent about an illegal activity or one which violates a clear and well-defined public policy. The employee need not report the alleged illegal activity to anyone. This holding substantially alters an earlier decision in which the Court of Appeals had held that a former employee must allege he reported alleged illegal activities to someone other than the individual who asked him to engage in the alleged activity. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2475 Article: 2475 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On October 3, 2008, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the presumption of at-will employment and clarified the applicable statute of limitations for retaliatory discharge claims in Sudberry v. Royal & Sun Alliance. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2203 Article: 2203 Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) When the owner of a meat processing company changed his business from a sole proprietorship to a corporation, his assignment of all business assets to the new entity automatically included the non-compete agreements entered into years earlier with two independent contractors, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has ruled. This is the first case in that state to address the issue of whether such contracts can pass to a successor company without the express acquiescence of all parties. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2068 Article: 2068 Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The Tennessee Supreme Court recently issued a decision clarifying the standard for the imposition of individual liability of supervisors for sexual harassment under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). See Allen v. McPhee. The Court also defined the elements of a prima facie case of retaliation under the THRA. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2046 Article: 2046 Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Beginning January 1, 2008, Tennessee employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants or fail to adequately check the status of illegal immigrants could lose their business license. Specifically, the law prohibits employers from employing, recruiting or referring for a fee of employment, illegal aliens. Employers do not, however, violate the new law if they use the federal electronic work authorization verification service to verify the employment status of workers within 14 days of their start date. Moreover, employers do not violate the law if they obtain the worker’s lawful resident verification information in a timely manner (even if this information is later determined to be false). http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2035 Article: 2035 Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The Tennessee Supreme Court recently ruled against a local state university and its president on an employee’s claims of discrimination, but ruled in their favor on the employee’s retaliation claims. According to the state’s highest court, the employee who accused the president of sexual harassment could have reasonably believed that complaining about the harassment would have been futile because the university’s complaint procedure designates the president as the final decision-maker on all harassment claims. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2034 Article: 2034 Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The state’s highest court recently ruled that the Workers’ Compensation Act covers telecommuters injured while working from home, but only if the injury arises out of and occurs in the course of employment. The Tennessee Supreme Court went on to find that an employee who was attacked by a neighbor in her home office was not entitled to benefits because her injuries did not arise out of her employment. Moreover, according to the court, the “street risk” doctrine did not apply to this case because the employee’s injuries were not causally connected with the nature of the employment. Wait v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, No. M2007-00099-SC-R3-WC, Supreme Court of Tennessee (November 16, 2007). http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=1930 Article: 1930 Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) A state appellate court recently upheld a ruling in favor of an employee who claimed that she was sexually harassed by her supervisors. Although the employer had adopted a sexual harassment policy, the Tennessee Court of Appeals held, the company was unable to satisfy the first element of the Ellerth-Faragher affirmative defense because it failed to properly implement the policy.