Young v. City of LaFollette

• Citation: 479 S.W.3d 785
• Parties: David G. Young v. City of LaFollette et al.
• Decision Date: 26 August 2015
• Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee

479 S.W.3d 785

David G. Young
v.
City of LaFollette et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee, AT KNOXVILLE.

May 6, 2015 Session
Filed August 26, 2015

David H. Dunaway, LaFollette, Tennessee, for the appellant, David Young.

Jon G. Roach, Emily C. Taylor, and Brian R. Bibb, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, City of LaFollette.

CORNELIA A. CLARK,J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SHARON G. LEE, C.J., and GARY R. WADE, JEFFREY S. BIVINS, and HOLLY KIRBY, JJ., joined.

OPINION

CORNELIA A. CLARK,, J.

We granted permission to appeal to address two issues: (1) Whether the Governmental Tort Liability Act ("GTLA"), Tenn.Code Ann. § 29–20–101 to –408 (2012 & Supp.2014), applies to Tennessee Public

479 S.W.3d 787

Protection Act ("TPPA"), Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–1–304 (2008 & Supp.2009), claims against governmental entities; and (2) If the GTLA does not apply, whether a constitutional or statutory right to trial by jury applies to TPPA claims brought in circuit court. As to the first issue, we hold that the GTLA does not apply to TPPA claims because the TPPA is an independent and specific body of law, which removes governmental immunity and thus controls the adjudication of TPPA claims against governmental entities. As to the second question, we hold that there is no constitutional right to trial by jury for TPPA claims and that there is no statutory right to trial by jury for TPPA claims filed in circuit court. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on the separate grounds stated herein, and this matter is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The background facts surrounding the disagreement between the parties in this case are convoluted and difficult to decipher. We recite only those relevant to an understanding of the issues presented by this interlocutory appeal. The plaintiff, David Young ("Mr.Young"), was employed as the city administrator for the City of LaFollette ("the City") for four-and-a-half years, from 2005 to 2009. Throughout much of his tenure, he was involved in controversy and litigation with the City and other City employees.¹ On May 1, 2009, Lynda White, clerk for the City, sent a letter to the mayor and City council reporting that Mr. Young had sexually harassed her.

On May 7, 2009, less than a week after Ms. White's grievance was received, Mr. Young filed suit in the Circuit Court for Campbell County against the City and other City officials.² Mr. Young alleged, among many other claims, anticipatory and actual breach of his written, four-year employment contract, and common law retaliatory discharge.³

Meanwhile, on August 4, 2009, following a City council meeting, Mr. Young was suspended from his duties as City administrator. On September 1, 2009, after an investigation into Ms. White's report of sexual harassment, the City terminated Mr. Young's employment.

479 S.W.3d 788

After Mr. Young's suspension but before his termination, the Defendants filed, on August 20, 2009, an answer and counter-complaint for declaratory judgment, requesting a declaration that the written contract with Mr. Young was null and void because it violated the City charter. On the same day the Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of Mr. Young's claims in the circuit court case. While the City's summary judgment motion remained pending, Mr. Young amended his complaint by agreement on February 26, 2010, to add a statutory retaliatory discharge claim under the TPPA. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–1–304. On April 9, 2010, the Defendants filed an amended motion for summary judgment, an answer to the amended complaint, and a counter-complaint for declaratory judgment. Mr. Young filed an answer to the Defendants' counter-complaint for declaratory judgment on June 3, 2011.

By order entered August 11, 2011, the trial court granted the City's amended motion for summary judgment on all claims against the Defendants except the TPPA retaliatory discharge claim against the City.⁴ On July 9, 2012, the City filed another motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the retaliatory discharge claim. Following a hearing on November 7, 2012, the trial court denied the City's second motion for summary judgment. At the conclusion of this hearing, Mr. Young moved orally to set the remaining claim for trial and requested a trial by jury. Relying on the GTLA, the City argued that Mr. Young was not entitled to a jury trial. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 29–20–307 (2012). The trial court requested that the parties submit written briefs on the issue, and the City subsequently moved to strike Mr. Young's jury demand.

After a December 10, 2012 hearing on Mr. Young's entitlement to a jury trial, the trial court entered an order on February 11, 2013, denying the City's motion to strike the jury demand. The trial court determined, as a matter of first impression, that Mr. Young was entitled to a jury trial on his TPPA claim but stated no legal basis for its decision. In the same order, however, the trial court granted the City permission to seek an interlocutory appeal on the jury-trial issue. See Tenn. R.App. P. 9.

The Court of Appeals granted the City's Rule 9 application on March 28, 2013, to address the following issue:

["Whether the provision of the [GTLA] that requires claims brought against governmental entities be decided "without the intervention of a jury," Tenn [.] Code Ann[.] § 29–20–307, applies to a statutory retaliatory discharge claim against a governmental entity brought pursuant to the [TPPA], see Tenn [.] Code Ann[.] § 50–1–304."] Young v. City of LaFollette, No. E2013–00441–COA–R9–CV, 2014 WL 545486, at *2 (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb. 10, 2014) [hereinafter City of LaFollette III ]. Relying primarily on Sneed v. City of Red Bank, No. E2012–02112–COA–R9–CV, 2013 WL 3326133, at *1 (Tenn.Ct.App. June 27, 2013), rev'd, 459 S.W.3d 17 (Tenn.2014), the Court of Appeals reversed the

479 S.W.3d 789

trial court's decision and held "that the GTLA applies to claims brought against a municipality pursuant to the TPPA, thereby requiring the claim to be tried without the intervention of a jury." City of LaFollette III, 2014 WL 545486, at *7.

We granted Mr. Young's Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 11 application for permission to appeal.

II. Standard of Review

Unlike an appeal as of right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3, in which both the appellant and the appellee have broad latitude with regard to the issues that may be raised, "[w]hen dealing with an interlocutory appeal, the Court can and will deal only with those matters clearly embraced within the question certified to it." Tenn. Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Hughes, 531 S.W.2d 299, 300 (Tenn.1975) ; see also Banks v. Elks Club Pride of Tenn. 1102, 301 S.W.3d 214, 227 n. 16 (Tenn.2010) (declining to address an issue because it was "beyond the scope of the issue certified on the interlocutory appeal"); In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 286 S.W.3d 898, 902 (Tenn.Ct.App.2008) (citing Heatherly v . Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 43 S.W.3d 911, 914 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) ) (recognizing that the scope of issues in interlocutory appeals is limited). The issue raised in this case encompasses two distinct questions, and in light of this Court's decision in Sneed v . City of Red Bank, 459 S.W.3d 17 (Tenn.2014), we directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the following two issues, which we will now address: (1) Whether the GTLA applies to a TPPA claim against a governmental entity; and (2) If the GTLA does not apply, does a plaintiff bringing a TPPA claim in circuit court have a right to trial by jury? See Young v . City of Lafollette, No. E2013–00441–SC–R11–CV (Tenn. Dec. 2, 2014) (order directing supplemental briefing).

The answers to these questions depend upon the construction of statutes. Statutory construction is a question of law that appellate courts review de novo without any presumption of correctness. In re Estate of Tanner, 295 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tenn.2009) ; see also Carter v. Quality Outdoor Prods., Inc., 303 S.W.3d 265, 267 (Tenn.2010) (citing Perrin v. Gaylord Entm't Co., 120 S.W.3d 823, 826 (Tenn.2003) ).

III. Analysis

Mr. Young contends that the Court of Appeals erred by holding that the procedural requirements of the GTLA apply to his TPPA claim and also asserts that this Court's decision in Sneed v. City of Red Bank is controlling. Conversely, the City asserts that Sneed is distinguishable from the instant case and that the Court of Appeals correctly held that Mr. Young is not entitled to a jury trial on his TPPA claim.

A. The GTLA

The doctrine of sovereign immunity, which provides that suit may not be brought against the government unless the government has consented to be sued, Lucius v. City of Memphis, 925 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tenn.1996), originated in "feudal notions of the divine right of kings. In feudal England the King was at the very pinnacle of the power structure and was answerable to no court since ‘the King...