Reynolds v. Ozark Motor Lines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1994
• Citation: 887 S.W.2d 822,129 Lab.Cas.P 57
• Parties: 129 Lab.Cas. P 57,839, 10 IER Cases 100 Barbara REYNOLDS and Jason Stephens, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OZARK MOTOR LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 822

887 S.W.2d 822

129 Lab.Cas. P 57,839, 10 IER Cases 100

Barbara REYNOLDS and Jason Stephens, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OZARK MOTOR LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Supreme Court of Tennessee,

at Jackson.

Oct. 31, 1994.

Douglas S. Johnston, Jr., Nashville, for plaintiffs-appellants.

John Marshall Jones, Young & Perl, P.C., Memphis, for defendant-appellee.

OPINION

REID, Justice.

This case presents for review the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which reversed jury verdicts for the plaintiffs, granted the defendant's motion for directed verdicts and dismissed the suit. This Court finds the record supports the judgment of the trial court, which is reinstated.

The Court of Appeals held that a claim for retaliatory discharge cannot be based upon the termination of employment caused by an employee's refusal to violate the safety provisions of the Tennessee Motor Carriers Act. T.C.A. § 65-15-101 et seq. (1993) ("Act"). That decision rests upon the court's finding that the Act does not by its terms govern employment relationships, nor does it provide any basis for a public policy exception to the employment at-will law of Tennessee.

The defendant, Ozark Motor Lines, Inc. ("Ozark"), is a motor carrier subject to the provisions of the Act. When the plaintiffs were discharged on December 27, 1989, they had been employed as team truck drivers by Ozark since March 1985. The cause of their discharge was the essential issue of fact found by the jury with regard to liability.

There was conflicting testimony regarding the cause of the plaintiffs' discharge. The plaintiffs' testimony, corroborated as to the essential issue by the defendant's safety director, showed that their employment was terminated because they refused to commence a trip from Memphis to Chicago in a truck they had not driven before without having adequate time to inspect it. Ozark's proof, with the exception of the testimony of its safety director, was that the plaintiffs refused to operate a truck other than the one usually assigned to them. In deciding that plaintiffs were discharged because they refused to operate a truck they did not have time to inspect, the jury obviously resolved the conflicting evidence in favor of the plaintiffs.

Even though the Court of Appeals stated that the determinative issue in the case is one of law, the opinion contains an extensive recitation of testimony relied upon by the defendant, only noting that the testimony regarding the circumstances of the plaintiffs' discharge was disputed. The appellate courts do not determine the credibility of witnesses or weigh evidence on appeal from a jury verdict. Appellate courts are limited to determining whether there is material evidence to support the jury's verdict. Where the record contains material evidence supporting the verdict, the judgment based on that verdict will not be disturbed on appeal. Forrester v. Stockstill, 869 S.W.2d 328, 329-30 (Tenn.1994); Hodges v. S.C. Toof and Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 898 (Tenn.1992). There is in the record material evidence supporting the jury verdicts.

The jury verdicts establish that the plaintiffs were discharged because they refused to violate regulations adopted pursuant to the Act which require that the driver of a motor vehicle inspect the vehicle and be satisfied that the vehicle is in safe operating condition before it is operated on a public road.

However, the Court of Appeals held, as a matter of law, that termination of the plaintiffs' employment because they refused to drive a truck onto the public highway without having adequate time to perform a safety inspection does not expose the employer to an action for retaliatory discharge. The Court of Appeals reached its conclusion without discussing this Court's holding in Hodges v. S.C. Toof, Inc., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn.1992).

In Hodges, the Court, after reviewing the exceptions to the employment at-will rule in Tennessee, found that the statutory remedy of reinstatement and reimbursement of lost wages was not the exclusive relief available to an employee discharged because of extended jury service. In allowing an action for compensatory and punitive damages, the Court in Hodges held:

[T]he tort action of retaliatory discharge [is] available to employees discharged as a consequence of an employer's violation of a clearly expressed statutory policy.

Id. at 899. In Hodges and in Anderson v. Standard Register Co., 857 S.W.2d 555, 556 (Tenn.1993), the Court reaffirmed its statement in Chism v. Mid-South Milling Co., 762 S.W.2d 552, 556 (Tenn.1988), that the action will lie where the employer has violated a clear public policy evidenced by an unambiguous constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision and the employer's violation was a substantial factor in the employee's discharge.

Although the Court in Anderson dismissed the employee's retaliatory discharge claim because she failed to prove causation, the Court observed:

The cause of action for retaliatory discharge defines the balance point between the employment-at-will doctrine and rights granted employees under well-defined public policy. By statute, an employer cannot discharge employees because of their race, religion, sex, age, physical condition or mental condition (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-401(a)(1) (1991), 8-50-103(a) (Supp.1992)), because they report work place safety violations (T.C.A. § 50-3-106(7) (1991)), because they miss work to perform jury duty (T.C.A. § 22-4-108(f) (Supp.1992)), or because they refuse to participate in or be silent about illegal activity at the work place (T.C.A. § 50-1-304 (1991)). In addition to the protection afforded by statutes, the Court in Chism v. Mid-South Milling Co., Inc., 762 S.W.2d 552, 556 (Tenn.1988), suggested several examples of clearly defined public policies which could warrant the protection provided by an action for retaliatory discharge.

Anderson v. Standard Register Co., 857 S.W.2d at 556. The Court in Chism stated:

Examples of clearly defined public policies which warrant the protection provided by this cause of action may be found in the case of Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 174 Cal.App.2d 184, 344 P.2d 25 (1959) in which an employee was discharged for refusing his employer's demand that he commit perjury before a legislative committee. In Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., 287 S.C. 219, 337 S.E.2d 213 (1985) an employee was discharged because she insisted upon obeying a lawful subpoena. In Sides v. Duke University, 74 N.C.App. 331, 328 S.E.2d 818, app. den'd 314 N.C. 331, 335 S.E.2d 13 (1985) the employee was discharged because she had insisted upon testifying truthfully in litigation. In Nees v. Hocks, 272 Ore. 210, 536 P.2d 512 (1975) an employee was discharged for honoring a subpoena to jury duty, and in Reuther v. Fowler & Williams, Inc., 255 Pa.Super. 28, 386 A.2d 119 (1978) the employee was discharged for not seeking to be excused from jury duty.

There have been several cases where employees were discharged for refusing to falsify records or to acquiesce in the mislabelling of unsafe or defective products. E.g., Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471, 427 A.2d 385 (1980) (quality control director discharged for calling attention to specific statutory standards where he was personally exposed to sanctions); Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., 700 S.W.2d 859 (Mo.App.19...