Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co.

• Decision Date: 20 April 1992
• Citation: 833 S.W.2d 896,60 USLW 2679,123 Lab.Cas.P 57
• Parties: , 123 Lab.Cas. P 57,150, 7 IER Cases 650 Carl E. HODGES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.C. TOOF & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 896

833 S.W.2d 896

60 USLW 2679, 123 Lab.Cas. P 57,150,

7 IER Cases 650

Carl E. HODGES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.C. TOOF & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

Supreme Court of Tennessee at Memphis.

April 20, 1992.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1992.

Tim Edwards, Glassman, Jeter, Edwards and Wade, P.C., Memphis, for plaintiff-appellant.

Carroll C. Johnson and Carroll C. Johnson, III, Johnson & Bateman, Memphis, for defendant-appellee.

OPINION

DROWOTA, Justice.

In this retaliatory discharge action, Plaintiff-Appellant Carl E. Hodges alleges Defendant-Appellee S.C. Toof & Company terminated Plaintiff's employment because of his jury service. At trial, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff and awarded him $200,000.00 compensatory and $375,000.00 punitive damages. The Court of Appeals, while upholding the jury's finding of retaliatory discharge, vacated the award of compensatory and punitive damages holding that under T.C.A. § 22-4-108, the exclusive remedy for an employee's discharge because of jury service was reinstatement and lost wages. We granted Plaintiff's application for permission to appeal in order to (1) decide whether the remedy provided by T.C.A. § 22-4-108 is exclusive and (2) reexamine the manner in which punitive damages are awarded in Tennessee.

Plaintiff Carl Hodges had been continuously employed by Defendant S.C. Toof & Company for some 19 years prior to his termination in January 1988. At the time of his firing, Plaintiff's position was that of assistant warehouse supervisor in Defendant's printing business. During his tenure, Plaintiff received 20 merit raises and had never been disciplined. In the summer of 1987 Plaintiff was called for jury service and sat as a juror in a three-month trial from mid-September to December 18, 1987. In early January 1988, Plaintiff was fired.

It is well established that when reviewing a judgment based on a jury verdict, appellate courts are limited to determining whether there is material evidence to support the verdict. Electric Power Bd. v. St. Joseph Valley Structural Steel Corp., 691 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Tenn.1985); Crabtree Masonry Co. v. C & R Constr., Inc., 575 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Tenn.1978). At trial, Plaintiff claimed he was discharged because of his lengthy jury service; Defendant claimed Plaintiff was discharged because of disobedience. The jury found Plaintiff was terminated because of his jury service. There being material evidence in the record supporting this verdict, it will not be disturbed on appeal.

I.

In 1986 the Legislature amended T.C.A. § 22-4-108 by adding a new subsection providing:

(f)(1) No employer shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against an employee for serving on jury duty if such employee, prior to taking time off, gives the required notice pursuant to subsection (a) to the employer that he is required to serve.

(2)(A) Any employee who is discharged, demoted, or suspended because such employee has taken time off to serve on jury duty shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by such acts of the employer.

(B) Any employer who willfully refuses to rehire, or otherwise restore an employee or former employee shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

See Act of March 17, 1986, ch. 583, § 1, 1986 Tenn.Pub.Acts 248 (codified at T.C.A. § 22-4-108(f) (Supp.1991)). The issue presented is whether the statutory remedy, namely "reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits," is the sole and exclusive relief available to an employee who has been "discharge[d] or in any manner discriminate[d] against ... for serving on jury duty." Resolution of this matter necessitates an examination of the state of the law on retaliatory discharge at the time the statute was enacted. This is so because if a statute creates a new right and prescribes a remedy for its enforcement, then the prescribed remedy is exclusive. Turner v. Harris, 198 Tenn. 654, 664, 281 S.W.2d 661, 665 (1955); Nashville & C. R.R. v. Sprayberry, 56 Tenn. 852, 854 (1874). However, where a common law right exists, and a statutory remedy is subsequently created, the statutory remedy is cumulative unless expressly stated otherwise. See Leach v. Rich, 138 Tenn. 94, 105, 196 S.W. 138, 140 (1917); State v. Duncan, 71 Tenn. 679, 684-88 (1879). Further, the Legislature is presumed to know the state of the law on the subject under consideration at the time it enacts legislation. Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 608 (Tenn.1987); Neff v. Cherokee Ins. Co., 704 S.W.2d 1, 5 (Tenn.1986); Equitable Life Assurance Co. v. Odle, 547 S.W.2d 939, 941 (Tenn.1977).

The doctrine of employment at will, well established in Tennessee, allows either party to terminate the relationship with or without cause. Payne v. The Western & A. R.R., 81 Tenn. 507, 517 (1884). However, in 1984 we recognized an exception to this rule and allowed a plaintiff to pursue an action for retaliatory discharge where she was terminated for exercising her rights under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law. See Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co., 677 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn.1984). In Clanton, we found an action for retaliatory discharge necessary in order to prevent employers from circumventing their statutory obligations. See id. at 444-45. Importantly, Clanton is not limited to retaliatory discharge actions arising from an employee's exercise of workers' compensation rights, but rather makes the tort action of retaliatory discharge available to employees discharged as a consequence of an employer's violation of a clearly expressed statutory policy.

Given that our recognition in Clanton of a common law tort action for retaliatory discharge predated the 1986 amendment to T.C.A. § 22-4-108, that the Legislature is presumed aware of this prior recognition, and that the remedies subsequently provided by the amendment are not expressly stated to be exclusive, then the statutory remedies must be considered cumulative. See Leach, 138 Tenn. at 105, 196 S.W. at 140; Duncan, 71 Tenn. at 684-88. Plaintiff here was thus free to pursue a common law remedy in damages. Had the Legislature intended to limit relief to the statutory remedies, it could easily have done so. ¹ Recent legislative action further convinces us the remedy was not intended to be exclusive. In 1989, and again in 1990, the General Assembly passed laws permitting employees to recover damages in addition to reinstatement and back pay if they are disciplined or discharged in violation of stated statutory policies. See T.C.A. § 49-50-1409 (1990) (1989 enactment relating to truth in education reporting); § 50-1-304(c) (1991) (1990 enactment relating to discharge of an employee for refusal to engage in or remain silent about illegal activities).

We caution that this Court has no intention of creating unwarranted judicial exceptions to the general rule of employment at will. See Chism v. Mid-South Milling Co., 762 S.W.2d 552, 556 (Tenn.1988). However, we are prepared to recognize a right to recovery for retaliatory discharge in cases where an employer violates a clear public policy evidenced by an unambiguous statutory provision. Id. (listing examples of clearly defined public policies which may warrant the protection provided by a retaliatory discharge remedy). We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals's judgment insofar as it holds that the statutory remedies provided by T.C.A. § 22-4-108 are exclusive, and reinstate the jury award of compensatory damages.

II.

Having found the statutory remedies are not exclusive, we turn to the propriety of the punitive damages award. As early as 1840, this Court stated: "In an action of trespass the jury are not restrained, in their assessment of damages, to the amount of the mere pecuniary loss sustained by the plaintiff, but may award damages in respect of the malicious conduct of the defendant, and the degree of insult with which the trespass had been attended." Wilkins v. Gilmore, 21 Tenn. 140, 141 (1840). Shortly thereafter we explained that these damages should operate to punish the defendant and deter others from like offenses. Polk, Wilson & Co. v. Fancher, 38 Tenn. 336, 341 (1858). Now termed punitory, vindictive, or exemplary damages, they were legally appropriate "[i]n cases of fraud, malice, gross negligence, or oppression." See Byram v. McGuire, 40 Tenn. 530, 532 (1859). Exemplary damage awards became proper in two instances: first, if the wrongdoer acted with a fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive intent; and second, if the act, while not done with malicious intent, was done "in a rude, insulting or reckless manner, in disregard of social obligations, or with such gross negligence as to amount to positive misconduct." See Louisville, N. & G.S. R.R. v. Guinan, 79 Tenn. 98, 105 (1883). More recently we stated that punitive damages are available in cases involving fraud, malice, gross negligence, oppression, wrongful acts done with a bad motive or so recklessly as to imply a disregard of social obligations, or where willful misconduct or an entire want of care raises a presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences. Inland Container Corp. v. March, 529 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Tenn.1975) (citing cases). The contemporary purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the wrongdoer and to deter the wrongdoer and others from committing similar wrongs in the future. See Huckeby v. Spangler, 563 S.W.2d 555, 558-59 (Tenn.1978). With these purposes in mind, and in the interest of fairness, we believe the time has come to reexamine, and modify, the manner in which punitive damages are awarded in Tennessee.

The United States Supreme Court has recently addressed constitutional challenges to punitive damage awards. In Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., the Court held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment did not apply to civil punitive damages awarded between private parties. 492 U.S. 257, 260, 109 S.Ct....