Stevens v. Tennessee Valley Authority
Citation | 517 F. Supp. 75 |
Decision Date | 14 April 1981 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 3-80-528. |
Parties | John H. STEVENS v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Robert Olive, McCord & Cockrill, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff.
Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Justin M. Schwamm, Sr., Asst. Gen. Counsel, Larry S. Bush, Thomas C. Doolan, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant.
This suit arises under Title 5 U.S.C. § 3551.
Plaintiff John H. Stevens was first hired by defendant Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) as a steamfitter at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant construction site in 1976. He was working there as a steamfitter when he received orders from the Tennessee Army National Guard to report for full time training duty from November 29, 1978 through August 17, 1979. He requested military leave from TVA, but was refused, and was later terminated for unavailability for work. On August 20, 1979, following completion of active duty service, plaintiff made application for restoration to his employment under Title 5 U.S.C. § 3551. He was offered reemployment as a "new hire" at that time, but did not accept because his union would not give him a referral to return to work. He was later informed by TVA's manager of construction in a letter of September 7, 1979 that the offer of reemployment was still open and would remain open through September 18, 1979. (Exhibit 4). Plaintiff chose not to accept the offer and filed the present action on November 26, 1980. He also appealed TVA's denial of his claimed restoration rights under both 5 U.S.C. § 3551 and 38 U.S.C. §§ 2021 et seq. to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board denied plaintiff's claims and that case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for review.
It is the contention of TVA that the present action is barred by the one-year statute of limitations contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104; that plaintiff was not a "permanent or temporary indefinite" employee and thus is not entitled to restoration under Title 5 U.S.C. § 3551; and that even if plaintiff were entitled to restoration, his refusal to accept TVA's offer of reemployment bars his claim for back pay.
It is a well established principle of law, which is not disputed, that if the federal statute upon which the cause of action is based does not provide a statute of limitations, the Court must look to the state statute of limitations, which in this case is Tennessee, for the statute which is most appropriate. Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp., 383 U.S. 696, 703-04, 86 S.Ct. 1107, 1111, 16 L.Ed.2d 192 (1966); Warner v. Perrino, 585 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir. 1978). The parties cannot agree on the applicable Tennessee statute of limitations, plaintiff claiming that § 28-3-105, which is the three-year statute of limitations, applies, and defendant contending that § 28-3-104, which is the one-year statute, applies.
Section 28-3-105, which governs inter alia statutory liabilities, provides in pertinent part as follows:
Section 28-3-104 provides the limitation for personal tort actions and reads in pertinent part as follows:
It is the contention of plaintiff that this is an action "for personal services rendered" under Section 28-3-105(3). In support of this contention, plaintiff relies on the case of Hire v. E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 324 F.2d 546 (6th Cir. 1963). Hire was an action for severance pay which the Court held to be equivalent to a suit to recover additional wages. Having found the action to be one for wages the Court went on to hold that the statute governing "monetary liability for personal services rendered" was applicable. The same may not be said of the present case. This is not a suit for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stevens v. Tennessee Valley Authority
...after a full trial on the merits it found that suit was in fact time-barred by Tennessee's one-year statute. Stevens v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 517 F.Supp. 75 (E.D.Tenn.1981). Having so found, the trial court declined to reach the merits of Stevens' claim. Id. at 77. I. Stevens' action ......
- United States v. JD, 81 Cr. 0008 (RWS).
-
Stevens v. Tennessee Valley Authority
...to be restored to his position. The district court initially dismissed plaintiff's claim as being time barred, see Stevens v. TVA, 517 F.Supp. 75 (E.D.Tenn.1981); this court reversed, holding that the statute of limitations for laches controlled, and remanded the case for trial on the merit......