Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co. Inc

• Decision Date: 20 September 2010
• Docket Number: No. M2007-02530-SC-R11-CV.,M2007-02530-SC-R11-CV.
• Citation: 320 S.W.3d 777
• Parties: Gary M. GOSSETTv.TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

320 S.W.3d 777

Gary M. GOSSETTv.TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.

No. M2007-02530-SC-R11-CV.

Supreme Court of Tennessee at Nashville.

Feb. 11, 2010 Session.

Sept. 20, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Douglas Ray Pierce and James Andrew Farmer, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Tractor Supply Company, Inc.

Wade Bonham Cowan, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Gary M. Gossett.

OPINION

JANICE M. HOLDER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GARY R. WADE, and SHARON G. LEE, JJ., joined. CORNELIA A. CLARK, J., filed a separate opinion dissenting in part and concurring in the judgment, in which WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J. joined.

JANICE M. HOLDER, C.J.

The employee brought an action for common law retaliatory discharge against his employer for refusal to participate in an allegedly illegal activity. The employer moved for summary judgment, presenting evidence of a legitimate reason for the employee's discharge pursuant to the framework announced in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). The employer also argued that summary judgment was warranted pursuant to Collins v. AmSouth Bank, 241 S.W.3d 879 (Tenn.Ct.App.2007), because the undisputed facts showed that the employee did not report the alleged illegality. The trial court granted summary judgment, which the Court of Appeals reversed. We hold that the McDonnell Douglas framework is inapplicable at the summary judgment stage because it is incompatible with Tennessee summary judgment jurisprudence. We also hold that an employee alleging retaliatory discharge for refusal to participate in an illegal activity need not report the illegality. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I. Facts and Procedure

Defendant Tractor Supply Company, Inc., (Tractor Supply) employed Gary Gossett as an “Inventory Control Manager” in its General Accounting Department until his discharge. As Inventory Control Manager, Mr. Gossett prepared the inventory reserve analysis, which calculates the amount of money Tractor Supply must reserve each fiscal quarter to account for excess or slow-moving inventory. Each dollar reserved proportionately decreases Tractor Supply's earnings. After completing the inventory reserve analysis, Mr. Gossett delivered it to his immediate supervisor, Vice President-Controller David Lewis, for use in Tractor Supply's quarterly earnings report to the Securities & Exchange Commission. The process was overseen by Tractor Supply's Chief Financial Officer, Calvin Massmann.

According to Mr. Gossett, during the first week of October 2003, Mr. Massmann instructed him to remove products from the inventory reserve. Mr. Gossett contends that this action would have artificially increased the quarterly earnings statement in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related federal securities regulations. Mr. Gossett specifically alleges that Mr. Massmann “wanted [Mr. Gossett] to look at all the various categories that made up the Company's inventory mix and find creative ways to remove products that seemed to be creating the greatest need for additional reserves.” Mr. Gossett states that he refused to participate in the allegedly illegal activity, which displeased Mr. Massmann, and submitted an accurate inventory reserve analysis to Mr. Lewis. On November 7, 2003, after consulting with Mr. Massmann and Tractor Supply's human resource manager, Mr. Lewis discharged Mr. Gossett.

Mr. Gossett brought an action for common law retaliatory discharge based on a violation of public policy. He specifically alleged that Tractor Supply discharged him for refusing to participate in Mr. Massmann's allegedly illegal activity. Tractor Supply moved for summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Gossett could not prove the essential causation element of his claim at trial. The trial court found that the case presented genuine issues of material fact, denied Tractor Supply's motion, and set a date for trial.

Six weeks before trial, however, Tractor Supply filed a motion requesting that the trial court reconsider and revise its order denying summary judgment in light of Collins v. AmSouth Bank, 241 S.W.3d 879 (Tenn.Ct.App.2007). In reconsidering its order, the trial court observed that, pursuant to Collins, “reporting the alleged illegal activity is an essential element of a cause of action for retaliatory discharge.” The trial court granted summary judgment because it was undisputed that Mr. Gossett did not report Mr. Massmann's allegedly illegal activity to anyone.

The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment. We granted Tractor Supply's application for permission to appeal.

II. Analysis

The issue before us is whether Tractor Supply is entitled to summary judgment as to Mr. Gossett's retaliatory discharge claim. The granting or denying of summary judgment is a question of law, which we review de novo. Blair v. W. Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761, 763 (Tenn.2004).

A.

Tractor Supply argues that summary judgment is warranted when the motion for summary judgment is analyzed pursuant to the framework announced in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Our analysis of this argument requires that we first describe the McDonnell Douglas framework, this Court's similar but distinct framework adopted in Anderson v. Standard Register Co., 857 S.W.2d 555, 559 (Tenn.1993), and the frameworks' application in Tennessee.

In McDonnell Douglas, the United States Supreme Court set forth for use at trial the “basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging discriminatory treatment.” Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). Pursuant to McDonnell Douglas, if an employee proves a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, the employee creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated or retaliated against him or her. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089. The burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate and nondiscriminatory or nonretaliatory reason for the action. Id. at 252-53, 101 S.Ct. 1089. If the employer satisfies its burden, the presumption of discrimination or retaliation “drops from the case,” id. at 255 n. 10, 101 S.Ct. 1089, which sets the stage for the factfinder to decide whether the adverse employment action was discriminatory or retaliatory. U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-15, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). The employee, however, “must ... have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the [employer] were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089. Tennessee courts have applied this evidentiary framework to statutory employment discrimination and retaliation claims. See e.g. Allen v. McPhee, 240 S.W.3d 803, 819-23 (Tenn.2007); Barnes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 48 S.W.3d 698, 708-09 (Tenn.2000).

For common law retaliatory discharge cases such as the one before us, this Court has adopted an analysis similar to but distinct from the McDonnell Douglas framework. At trial, the employee has the burden of proving the four elements of the claim:

(1) that an employment-at-will relationship existed;

(2) that the employee was discharged;

(3) that the reason for the discharge was that the employee attempted to exercise a statutory or constitutional right, or for any other reason which violates a clear public policy evidenced by an unambiguous constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision; and

(4) that a substantial factor in the employer's decision to discharge the employee was the employee's exercise of protected rights or compliance with clear public policy.

Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int'l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 862 (Tenn.2002) (citations omitted). Proof of a causal link between the employee's exercise of a protected right or compliance with clear public policy and the employer's decision to discharge the employee then “imposes upon the employer the burden of showing a legitimate, non-pretextual reason for the employee's discharge.” Anderson, 857 S.W.2d at 559. No opinion of this Court addressing common law retaliatory discharge, however, has described how an employee must respond to the employer's proffered reason.¹ Nor have we been called on, until now, to demonstrate how the employer's burden of showing a legitimate reason for discharge applies at the summary judgment stage. ²

B.

This case presents us with an opportunity to consider the continued viability of the McDonnell Douglas and the Anderson frameworks (collectively the McDonnell Douglas framework) at the summary judgment stage. We therefore review the McDonnell Douglas framework in the context of Tennessee summary judgment law, particularly in light of our recent clarification of summary judgment in Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co., 270 S.W.3d 1, 8-9 (Tenn.2008).

Summary judgment operates to dispose of a case only when it presents no genuine issue of material fact and when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. Rule 56 therefore precludes trial courts from deciding issues of material fact in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Mills v. CSX Transp., Inc., 300 S.W.3d 627, 631 (Tenn.2009). To show that a case presents no genuine issue of material fact, a party moving for summary judgment must produce evidence or refer to evidence in the record “that affirmatively negates an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or shows that the nonmoving party cannot prove an essential element of the claim at trial.” Id. (citing Hannan, 270 S.W.3d at 8-9). “To affirmatively negate an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim, [the moving party] must point to evidence that tends to disprove a material factual allegation made by the nonmoving party.”...