Phelps v. State
Decision Date | 10 March 2021 |
Docket Number | No. M2020-00570-COA-R3-CV,M2020-00570-COA-R3-CV |
Citation | 634 S.W.3d 721 |
Parties | Kelly L. PHELPS v. STATE of Tennessee |
Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Jason A. Lee and Laura E. Bassett, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Kelly L. Phelps.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée Sophia Blumstein, Solicitor General; and David M. Rudolph, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Plaintiff Kelly Phelps brought this action for sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under the Tennessee Human Rights Act ("THRA") against her employer, the State of Tennessee. Plaintiff worked as a server at the restaurant at Paris Landing State Park ("the park"). She alleged that Josh Walsh, the assistant park manager who was described as "second in command" at the park, sexually assaulted her at an "after-party" on State property that immediately followed a Halloween party hosted by the park at the restaurant and inn. She further alleged that after she reported the incident, Defendant, among other retaliatory actions, allowed Walsh to continue working around her at the park as usual, and to continue harassing and threatening her. Following extensive discovery, Defendant moved for summary judgment. The trial court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Walsh was Plaintiff's supervisor; whether he "sexually harassed women at Paris Landing State Park prior to the Halloween party" and Defendant was aware of it; and whether "a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Mr. Walsh's action in grabbing [Plaintiff] by the neck and thrusting his body against her in a sexual manner was ‘extremely serious’ and sufficient to impose liability on the Defendant." However, the trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant because it found that the sexual assault did not occur "in the workplace." Regarding the retaliation claim, the trial court held that Plaintiff did not establish that Defendant took a "materially adverse action" against her after she reported the assault. We hold that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the alleged harassment and discrimination affected a term, condition, or privilege of Plaintiff's employment, and whether Defendant unlawfully retaliated against her. We vacate the judgment of the trial court.
The Halloween party was planned and thrown by the park's restaurant managers on October 21, 2017. It was open to the public, and park employees were strongly encouraged to attend in costume. The party was adults-only because the restaurant's bar was open and alcohol was served in abundance. Restaurant managers gave out buy-one-get-one-free drink coupons to employees. Most of the party attendees were park employees. The trial court found that Four State employees–Plaintiff, her fellow servers Christen Patterson and Magan Davis, and room clerk Alison Otelo–subsequently filed reports with Defendant complaining of sexual harassment by Walsh that evening. One of them, Patterson, later filed a lawsuit at the same time as Plaintiff.
Plaintiff and Patterson filed many joint pleadings, conducted discovery together, and made many of the same arguments before the trial court. Although numerous pleadings and memoranda filed below state that the cases were consolidated, there is no order to that effect in the record. Both parties recognize on appeal that Plaintiff's and Patterson's cases were not officially consolidated. The trial court's final order disposes of both cases together. The trial court denied summary judgment in Patterson's action because some of her alleged harassment took place at the party, in or around the park restaurant. The trial court found as follows:
(Citations to record omitted).
(Citations to record omitted).
Plaintiff filed a sworn declaration in which she alleged as follows, in pertinent part:
(Numbering in original omitted).
Plaintiff also alleged that as further retaliation, Defendant unfairly singled her out for written discipline resulting from its determination that her Halloween costume was inappropriate. Defendant moved for summary judgment in both Patterson's case and the current case. Among other things, the parties filed the entire depositions of fourteen witnesses in support of, and opposition to, summary judgment. The trial court stated as follows in its order granting summary judgment:
(Citations in original omitted).
The trial court denied summary judgment in Patterson's action, finding among other things that "a reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial