Haley v. University of Tennessee-Knoxville

• Decision Date: 17 March 2006
• Parties: Usha HALEY v. UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE-KNOXVILLE, et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

188 S.W.3d 518

Usha HALEY v. UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE-KNOXVILLE, et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville.

January 4, 2006 Session at Knoxville.

March 17, 2006.

Irwin Venick, Nashville, Tennessee, and Carol S. Nickle, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Petitioner, Usha Haley.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Kimberly J. Dean, Deputy Attorney General; and Devon L. Gosnell, Associate General Counsel, University of Tennessee, for the Respondents, University of Tennessee-Knoxville and Jan Williams.

OPINION

E. RILEY ANDERSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM M. BARKER, C.J., and ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., JANICE M. HOLDER, and CORNELIA A. CLARK, JJ., joined.

We accepted a question of law certified by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to determine whether a voluntary non-suit before the Tennessee Claims Commission activates the waiver provision of Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(b) (2005), barring a federal or state cause of action arising from the same act or omission as the claim before the Claims Commission. We hold that it does. We also hold that Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 23 authorizing the certified question procedure is not an impermissible extension of this Court's jurisdiction under the Tennessee Constitution.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Tennessee Rules of the Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has certified a question to this Court. The question arose in the course of a lawsuit brought by petitioner Usha Haley ("Haley") against respondent University of Tennessee ("U.T.").

Background

According to the federal district court's certification order, U.T. hired Haley as an Associate Professor of Management in 2000. The position had a three-year probationary period, with consideration for tenure no later than the end of the 2001-02 academic year. Haley applied for tenure and promotion in the 2001-02 academic year. She was denied tenure and promotion on May 28, 2002.

Haley filed an action against U.T. in the federal district court on May 23, 2003, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, based on gender and national origin discrimination. Haley also alleged a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the Dean of the Business College. On April 21, 2004, Haley filed a claim for breach of contract with the Tennessee Claims Commission. In addition, she has also filed a complaint in the Knox County Chancery Court alleging a violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act.

On June 4, 2004, U.T. filed a motion in federal district court to dismiss Haley's claim on the ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction, because by filing a claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission, Haley had waived all causes of action related to her failure to obtain tenure. The waiver provision of the Tennessee Claims Commission Act states:

Claims against the state filed pursuant to subsection (a) shall operate as a waiver of any cause of action, based on the same act or omission, which the claimant has against any state officer or employee. The waiver is void if the commission determines that the act or omission was not within the scope of the officer's or employee's office or employment.

Tenn.Code Ann. § 9-8-307(b) (Supp.2005). Later, on July 2, 2004, Haley withdrew her claim before the Claims Commission. The Commission entered an "Order of Dismissal without Prejudice" on August 19, 2004. U.T. argued to the district court that Haley's claim for breach of contract filed with the Claims Commission bars her suit in district court, even though the Claims Commission dismissed it without prejudice.

The federal district court did not rule on the motion to dismiss the federal action. Instead, the federal court certified the following question to this Court:

Does the withdrawal or voluntary non-suit of a claim filed with the Tennessee Claims Commission, done prior to any action being taken by the Claims Commission, still activate the waiver provision of Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(b) to require dismissal of a plaintiff's federal and/or state cause of action arising from the same act or omission as the claim before the Claims Commission?

We accepted the certified question.

Analysis

In addition to the dispute that is the basis of the certified question, the parties have also raised the question of whether the Supreme Court has the authority to answer the certified question. We address that issue first.

Certified Questions

Rule 23 of the Tennessee Rules of the Supreme Court provides:

The Supreme Court may, at its discretion, answer questions of law certified to it by the Supreme Court of the United States, a Court of Appeals of the United States, a District Court of the United States in Tennessee, or a United States Bankruptcy Court in Tennessee. This rule may be invoked when the certifying court determines that, in a proceeding before it, there are questions of law of this state which will be determinative of the cause and as to which it appears to the certifying court there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 23, § 1. This Court adopted Rule 23 in 1989 and has since accepted and answered numerous certified questions from the federal courts. In spite of the fact that the rule has been in place for seventeen years, U.T. argues that it is unconstitutional and that this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the certified question. For the following reasons, we reject U.T.'s argument.

A certification procedure permits a state's highest court to accept and answer a question of state law certified to it by the federal court to assist the federal court in deciding a question of state law. See 17A Charles Alan Wright, Edward H. Cooper & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4248 (2d ed.1988). A majority of states have in place a procedure similar to our Rule 23. See id. § 4248 n. 30. As the United States Supreme Court recognized in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), "[e]xcept in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case [in federal court] is the law of the state." In cases where the "law of the state" is unclear, absent a certification procedure the federal court must either "(1) guess at the law and risk laying down a rule which may later prove to be out of harmony with state decisions ... or (2) abstain from deciding the case until the state courts pass upon the point of law involved." In re Elliott, 74 Wash.2d 600, 446 P.2d 347, 350 (1968) (en banc). Certification procedures assist the federal courts in correctly disposing of state law issues without incurring the delay inherent in the abstention process. See Theodore B. Eichelberger, Certification Statutes: Engineering a Solution to Pullman Abstention Delay, 59 Notre Dame L.Rev. 1339, 1349-52 (1984). Certification thus "save[s] time, energy, and resources and helps build a cooperative judicial federalism." Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391, 94 S.Ct. 1741, 40 L.Ed.2d 215 (1974).

More importantly, the certification procedure protects states' sovereignty. "To the extent that a federal court applies different legal rules than the state court would have, the state's sovereignty is diminished [because] the federal court has made state law." Scott v. Bank One Trust Co., N.A., 62 Ohio St.3d 39, 577 N.E.2d 1077, 1080 (1991). Such an impact on state sovereignty "is no small matter, especially since a federal court's error may perpetuate itself in state courts until the state's highest court corrects it." Id. (citation omitted).

Notwithstanding the strong policy arguments weighing in favor of a certification procedure, U.T. argues that because this Court's jurisdiction is limited by the Tennessee Constitution to appellate jurisdiction, the Court lacks jurisdiction to answer certified questions. Article VI, section 2 of the Tennessee Constitution provides that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court "shall be appellate only, under such restrictions and regulations as may from time to time be prescribed by law; but it may possess such other jurisdiction as is now conferred by law on the present Supreme Court." See also Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-3-201 (Supp.2005).

We have consistently held that Article VI, section 2's grant of power limits this Court to adjudicating appellate matters only. See, e.g., Peck v. Tanner, 181 S.W.3d 262, 265-66 (Tenn.2005) (appellate courts may not proceed as triers of fact); In re E.N.R., 42 S.W.3d 26, 31-32 (Tenn. 2001) ("This Court `is a court of appeals and errors ... limited in authority to the adjudication of issues that are presented and decided in the trial courts....'"); In re Cumberland Power Co., 147 Tenn. 504, 249 S.W. 818, 818-19 (1923); but see Belmont v. Bd. of Law Exam'rs, 511 S.W.2d 461, 462 (Tenn.1974) (Court has "original power" to review petition directly from Board of Law Examiners because of Court's inherent authority to prescribe and administer rules for licensing of attorneys). In construing the scope of our jurisdiction under Article VI, section 2, however, we have in the past been concerned exclusively with the Court's authority to adjudicate, that is, to finally settle, disputes before this Court. Because answering a certified question is not an adjudicative function, it is not an exercise of this Court's jurisdiction and is not prohibited by Article VI, section 2.

As we have previously explained, "[j]urisdiction is [the] lawful authority of a court to adjudicate a controversy brought before it; jurisdiction of the subject matter is conferred by the constitution and statutes, jurisdiction of the parties is acquired by service of process." Kane v. Kane, 547 S.W.2d 559, 560 (Tenn.1977) (citation omitted). In other words, a court only exercises...