### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE O n B ri ef s S ep te mb er

20, 200 7

SERENA RUCKER v . ST. THO MAS HOS PITAL

A Dire ct A ppeal from the C ircuit Court f or Davidson Coun ty No. 05C-3817 The Honorable Barbara N. Haynes, Judge

No. M2007- 00716-COA-R 3-CV - Filed November 26, 2007

This is a common-law r etaliatory discharg e ca se. P laintiff/Appellant alleg ed that she w as wrong fully

d is c h arg ed fr om her e mploy ment with Defe ndant/Appellee . Def endant/Appe llee moved fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt, wh ic h th e tr ia l c ourt g ra nte d. Pla int if

f/Ap pe lla nt a pp e a ls. We a ff

ir m.

Tenn. R. App . P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Tr ial Court Aff irme d

W. F R ANK C RAW FORD , J.,delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J., W .S. and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., joined.

James L. Ha

rris of Na shville, Tennessee for Appe llant, Serena Rucker

Luther W right, Jr. and Martha L. Boyd of Nashville, Tenne ssee for Appellee, S t. Thomas Hospital

OP IN ION

Serena Rucker ( “Appe llant”) be gan working at S t. Thomas M edica l Center (“ Hospital,” or “Appe llee”) as an onc ology nurse in 1987. The recor d indicates that Ms. Rucker perf ormed we ll as

a nu rs e . H e r e va luatio ns we re go od , a ndsh e wa s r e c og niz e d f or he r a c hie ve me nts in n ur sin g in 2004. In ea

rly 2004, the Hospi tal offe red Ms. Rucker the newly-c reated position of Patient Relations Coordinator (“ PRC ”) in the Hospital’s Risk Manageme nt Department. Ms. Rucker ac cepte d the position. The Risk Mana gement Depa rtment was led by Dr. Clarenc e Thomas, Jr., and Ms Rucke r’s direc t supervisor wa s Patient Safety Off icer Ava De an La ncaste r.

Ms. Ruc ke r’ s r ole a s a

PRC w a s to a c t a s a fi rs t re sp on de r t o p a tie nt o r f a mil y c omp la int s. Upon re ceiving a c omplaint, Ms. R ucker was to asse ss the complaint to determine w hich Hospital

e mpl oy e e (s ) c ou ld be st a dd re ss the c omp la int . I de a lly , M s. Ruc ke r w ou ld e ns ur e that r e sp on sib ili ty for the c omplaint would s t ay i n the unit from which it ar ose, to be re solved by the unit manage r. Ac c or di n g t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e d e p o s i t i o n s , M s

. L a n c a s t e r a n d D r

. T h o m a s m a d e i t c l e ar to M s. Ruc ke r that he r r ole wa s n ot t o s olv e the pr ob le ms h e rs e lf, but rathe r t o me nto r u nit ma na ge rs in-2-

order to enable the se mana gers to solve the pr oblems themsel v es

. Howeve r, if the c omplaint had risk manage ment implication, Ms. R ucker was to go direc tly to Ms. Lancaster

.
The rec ord indicate s that, almost from the beginning, Ms. Lanc aster and Dr. Thomas w ere unhappy with Ms. Rucker’ s job pe rformance

. In her deposition, Ms. Lanc aster r eca lled an incident in which a patient’s family asked Ms. Lancaste r not to allow Ms. R ucker back into the patient’s room bec ause of

their perception that Ms. Rucker was t rying to get t he patient discharge d befor e the patient was r eady. In response to this complaint, Ms. L anca ster states that she orde red Ms. Rucke r to stay out of this patient’s room. Ms. Rucker de fied Ms. Lanc aster’ s instructions and re- enter ed the room. Whe n asked w hy she had disobeye d a direc tive from her supervisor, Ms. Rucker c laimed that “this was a c omplaint about me,” which Ms. Rucke r fe lt she need to a ddress.

On Se pte mbe r 1 7, 20 04
, Ms. La nc a ste r a nd Dr

. Th oma s sat do wn wi th Ms. Ruc ke r t o d isc us s her pe rformance in the PRC position. Ms. Lanc aster and Dr. Thomas m emorialize d the substance of this meeting in a docu m en t entitled “17 September 2004 Summary of Discussion on Setting Goals” ( “2004 Summary”)

. The 2004 Summary sets forth four specific tasks on which Ms. Rucker

wa s to fo c us go ing fo rw ard–me nto ri ng ma na ge rs , p e rf orma nc e imp ro ve me nt, vis itatio n o f p a tie nts wh o a re wi tho ut c omp la int s, a nda gg re gatio n o f c omp laint a ndc omp lim e nt d a ta . W ith re sp e c t to the first t ask, m entoring mana gers, Ms. La ncaste r and D r. Thomas instructe d Ms. Rucker that, “ [i]f the re are pr ob le ms w ith ou r pa tie nt an d c us tom e rs , th e ind ivi du a ls w ho sh ou ld b e se e n a s b e ing mos t

a de pt at a dd re ssi ng the se iss ue s a ndmos t in vo lve d s ho uld be the ind ivi du a ls re sp on sib le fo r c are in that a re a . W ith that pr e mis e pr ob le ms s ho uldbe a dd re sse d f ir st ly to the ma na ge rs , w or kin g w ith the m to so lve the iss ue s. ” Ms. La nc a ste r and Dr . T ho ma s e mph a siz e d M s. Ruc ke r’ s r ole a s a mentor, rather than a hands-on problem solver, noting, in the 2004 Summary, that “ the proc ess of imp ro vin g th e sk ill s o f a

ma na ge r w il l requ ir e in ter pe rs on a l skill s o n th e pa

rt of [M s. Ruc ke r] to

assure that the interc hange is a learning experience for both [Ms. Rucke r] a nd the manage r.”

Th e se c on d ta sk , p e rf

orma nc e imp ro ve me nt, wa s b a se d u po n th e fa c t th a t ma ny pr ob le ms that patie nts e xp e ri e nc e are no t a re su lt of ind ivi du a l f a ili ng s, bu t r a the r a

re the re su lt o f f

a ilu re s in the sy ste m a s a wh ole

. W ith thi s in min d, Dr

. Th oma s a nd Ms. La nc a ste r re min de d Ms. Ruc ke r t o be mindful of t his fac t, and to look for ways to improve the Hospital proc esses in orde r to minimi ze patie nt p ro ble ms.
Concerning the third task, visitation of patients who are w ithout complaint, Ms. Lancaster

a nd Dr . Tho ma s re min de d M s. Ruc ke r that sh e wa s to so lic it p a tie nts wh o h a d n ot l od ge d c omp la int s to se e if th e y h a d a n y c o m p l a i n t s o r c o m p l i m e n t s

. M s

. R u c k e r w a s d i r e c t e d t o t ak e n o t e s a n d to

a gg re gate he r tho ug hts ov e r t ime so that th e Ho sp ita l c ou ld take a c tio n to a dd re ss iss ue s that aro se
re pe a te dly in p art ic ula

r u nit s.
Finally, Ms. Lanc as t er and Dr. Thomas instructed Ms. Rucker to focus on aggr egation of compl ai n t and complim ent data into the Hospital’s a lrea dy-existing databa se. They note d in the 2004 Summary that Ms. Rucker ha d not been putting information into the databa se.

Ms. Lanc as t er an d Dr. Thomas inc luded two other “ points of discussion” in the 2004 Sum mary , to wi t:-3- If the re is a ny po ten tial f

or a c omp la int

to e sc a la te to a

le ga l c la im, [Ms. Lanc aster] needs to be informed and have the opportunity to be the individual who will intervene.

Fol low ing up of

e ve nts is i mpo rt a nt. It

is n ot [M s. Ruc ke r’ s] ro le to do formal investigation of a n err or or pr oblem that woul d have imp lic a tio ns fr om e ith e r a le ga l po int

of vie w o r f

ro m a ro ot c a us e
a na lys is a sp e c t.
In May 2005, Ms. Rucker r ece ived her first perf ormanc e appr aisal in the PRC posi tion. The Hospital evaluates employee s on a one to thre e sca le. A one me ans that the e mployee “inconsistently meets standar d;” two means that the employee “succ essfully meets standa rd;” a nd three means the e mployee “c onsistently excee ds standard.” In her evaluation, Ms. R ucker

rec eived

an over all perf

ormanc e rating of 60.6 points, comprised of two “3s,” sevente en “2s,” and nine “ 1s”. Severa l of the criticisms of Ms. R ucker ’s work w ere based upon her failure to improve her pe rf orma nc e of

the ta sk s o utl ine d in the 20 04 Sum mary , to wi t:

One of the cr ucial goals set f

or [Ms. Rucke r] on September 17, 2004 was to visit patients on one unit eac h day to solicit input on t heir c are
a ndof fe r a ssi sta nc e wi th any pr ob le ms the y h a d e nc ount ere d. Th is specific goal was se t in hopes these visits would prevent issues fr om be c omi ng c omp la int s. [M s. Ru cker ] h a s b e e n u na ble to m ake the se visits as re quired by the a gree ment she signed and r elies primarily on the Vo lun te e r V isi tor s to se e patie nts wh o a re wi thou t complaint s. She spends an inordinate amount of time on complaints and doe sn’t

se e m a ble to r e fer th e ini tia l c omp la int to the De pa

rt me nt o r U nit Manage r. Ther efor e, t h e g o al of mentoring mana gers a nd clinical le a de rs ha s n ot b e e n me t. S he a lso c on tin ue s to in ser t her se lf in nursing issues that are no longer he r purview since she does not

re pr e se nt a

un it o r se rv e a s a

be ds ide c are giv e r. Ad dit ion a lly , s ome of he r p e e rs ha ve vo ic e d d ist ru st o f h e r a ndc on sid e r h e r e ff orts i n their ar eas of

expertise and re sponsibili ties intrusive and u n n e c essary. W e ha ve se e n n o d a ta

a t a ll f ro m un so lic ite d v isi ts.

Th is p e rf orma nc e app raisa l a lso no te s th a t Ms . Ru c ke r h a d f a ile d to ma int a in a

c omp ute r d a ta

ba se of the c omplaints she had i nvestigated. As a re sult, the Hospital had no aggre gate data to revie w for trends and patterns so as to improve its proce sses. The pe rformance appraisal also notes an incide nt wher e Ms. Rucker had helped herself to food that was put out for the residents’ lunc h. The Hospital h o lds a noon confe renc e for its medical reside nts and serve s them lunch. Whe n there is leftover fo od , o the r e mpl oy e e s a

re we lc ome to h e lp the mse lve s. Ho we ve r, a c c or din g to the app raisa l, M s. La nc a ste r r e c e ive d a

c a ll fr om the se c re tary of the de pa rt me nt of me dic ine inf

ormin g he r that Ms

. Rucker ha d gone in to eat be fore the residents arrived. Ms. L anca ster spoke with Ms. Rucker about thi s in c ide nt. In turn. Ms. Ruc ke r w e nt t o s ee the Chi e f o f M e dic ine a ndthe Chi e f R e sid e nt t o dis c us s th e iss ue wi th the m. W he n th e Chi e f o f Me dic ine tol d M s. La nc a ste r a bo ut this

conver sation, Ms. Lanca ster ca lled Ms. Rucker in to ask why she had gone to the Chief of MedicineI n A ug ust 200 4, t he H ospi t al und er w ent a r edu cti o n in fo rce , and t he R i s k M anagem ent D epar t m ent w as 1

i ns t r uct ed t o s el ec t one pos i t i on for el i m i nat i on. D r

. T hom as chos e t he PRC pos i t i on. U pon l ea r ni ng t hat he r pos i t i on

w as bei ng el i m i nat ed, M s

. R ucke r s ent a l et t er t o t he H os pi t al ’ s Chi ef Exec ut i ve O f f i ce r e xpl ai ni ng how s he f el t a bout h er p o si t i o n an d h er im p en d i n g l ay o ff. T h e n ex t d ay , t h e C E O ca l l ed D r. T h o m as a n d i n st ru cted h i m t o o ffer M s. Rucke r bac k her j ob. I n hi s de pos i t i on, D r

. Thom as a dm i t s t hat he w as a nger ed by t he w ay t hi s i nci dent w as ha ndl ed. D r

. T ho m as i ni t i al l y t ol d M s

. Ru cker t hat
, i f her posi t i on w as no t el i m i nat ed, t hen som eone el s e’ s w ou l d hav e t o be,

w hi ch i s w hat he bel i eved at t he t i m e. I n r es po nse , M s

. R ucker t ol d D r

. T ho m as t hat s he di d not f eel i t w as her probl em i f s om eone ha d t o go, but r at her t hat i t w as D r

. Thom as ’ pr obl em

. D r

. Thom as s t at es t hat he w as s ur pr i s ed by w hat he
p erc eiv ed as an i n o r d in a te ly h arsh resp o n se b y M s. R u ck er. T h e d ec i si o n w as u l t i m ately m ad e th at t h e R i sk M an ag em en t D ep artm en t w o u l d n o t h av e to eli m i n ate a n y p o si t i o n s.

-4- wi th thi s issu e

. Ms. Ruc ke r ex plaine d tha t “it be c a me a c omp la int abo ut me .” Ms. La nc a ste r a lso raised the issue of Ms. Rucker ’s ac tions following news of t he possi ble elim ination of her position,

a ndno te d th a t Ms. Ruc ke r’ s de me a no r t ow ardDr . T ho ma s d uring thi s in c ide nt w a s in su bo rd inate

a nddis re sp e c tf

ul. 1

In the performa nce review
, Dr. Thomas and Ms. Lanc aster also indicate that Ms. Rucker ’s job is i n je op ard y, to w it:

[Ms. Rucker ] has not adhe red to the Patient Relations Coordinator job description. S he fr equently oversteps the boundaries of her role a nd

a ssu me s posi tio ns that ar e no t her s to ass ume . Sh e ha s in te rf e re d in

sever al pat i ent issues and disre garde d specific direc tives from me. With all this in m ind, [Ms. Rucker] will be given 30 days to improve her pe rformance or further steps will be take n.
During the discussion of Ms. Ruc ker’ s appraisal with Ms. Lanc aster, Dr. Thomas enter ed the room and a sked Ms. Rucker if she would enter into an Individual Improveme nt Plan. Ms. Rucker

ac q u ie s c e d
, a n d M s

. L a n c a s te r d r a f te d th e I mp r o v e me n t Pl a n th a t d a y

. T h e Pl a n o u tl in e d three sp e c if ic are a s th at ne e de d to imp ro ve a nd the sp e c if ic ta sk s that Ms. Ruc ke r ne e de d to c omp le te in

or de r t o impr ov e tho se are a s. In he r d e po sit ion , M s. Ruc ke r s ta te s th a t sh e wa s “ de va state d” by Ms. Lan ca s t er ’s re m ar k s an d cr i t i ci s m s

. S h e c l ai m s t h at , al t h o u g h s h e u n d er s t o o d t h at M s

. L an ca s ter wa s dissatisfied with her pe rform an ce , she did not understand w hy. A fe w days late r, Ms. Rucker

su bmi tte d a

re sp on se to h e r a

pp raisa l. I n th is r e sp on se , M s. Ruc ke r i nd ic a te s th a t sh e vie we d M s. Lanc aster’ s statements as “statements about my c hara cter and your perc eption of me as a per son.” Ms. Rucker indicated that she disagr eed w ith Ms. Lancaster and Dr

. T h o m as’ criticisms, and that she viewe d herse lf as an e ffe ctive and highly re garde d employee.

In Jul y 2005, Ms. Rucker wa s again c ited for ove rstepping the bounds of the PRC positi on. Acc ordi n g t o M s. Rucker’ s deposition, she was appr oache d by Lisa Davis, a Hospital employee. Ms. Davis had e nrolled her son (who had rec ently been dia gnosed with diabete s) in the Hospital’s employee dayca

re center

. Because the wor kers in the c enter

wer e not qualified to a dminist er insulin, Ms. Da vis ha d be e n inf

orme d tha t the da yc are c ou ld no lon ge r ca re fo r he r son

. Up on he ari ng Ms. Davis’ story, Ms. Rucke r suggested that Ms. D avis talk to the Hospital’s Chief Ope rating Off icer
, Cin dy W e de l. M s. Ruc ke r w e nt s o f ar a s to take Ms. Da vis to Ms. W e de l’ s o ff ic e so that sh e c ou ld-5-

make an appointment. Ms. Rucker testified that she told Ms. Davis to “[g]o right in that office. You tell her [Ms. W edel’ s secr etary] that you’d like to talk to Cindy beca use C indy always ha s an opendoor policy....” A ccor ding to Ms. Ruc ker, she left Ms. D avis with Ms. Wede l’s secr etary to make an appointment. Ms. Rucker further explained that it was normal for H ospital employees to see k her out for help be cause she wa s “all over the ho s p i t al an d as patient re lations coordinator and as president of

the nursing staff

and having be en involved in sha red governance f

or many, many ye ars,” and that “[ a]ny w ay [she] could guide anyone to w here they neede d to be to have issues take n car e of, [she ] would do so.”

Ms. La nc a ste r andDr . T ho ma s w e re no t ple a se d w ith Ms. Ruc ke r’ s in vo lve me nt i n M s. Davis’ matter . Acc ording to Ms. Lanca ster, Ms. Davis’ issue was essentially a Huma n Resource s
ma tte r, no t on e that ne e d to be br ou gh t di re c tly to th e COO . A c c or din g to Ms. La nc a ste r, Ms. Ruc ke r ha d n o r e sp on sib ili ty f or hu ma n r e so ur c e s is su e s. Ina writt e n s ta te me nt t o M s. Ruc ke r, Ms. Lanc aster and Dr. Thomas state d that Ms. Ruc ker “is on notice that a ny further deviation from he r job de sc ri pti on a nd a c tiv iti e s pre vio us ly i nc lud e d ina n I nd ivi du a l I mpr ov e me nt P la n w ill re su lt i n her te rmination of employment at St. Thomas Hospital.”

Ap pr ox imate ly thr e e mon ths a ft e r this e ve nt, Ms. Ru cker was re mov e d f ro m he r P RC position for allegedly using poor judgm ent during an incident involving an allegedly impaire d nurse. Th is i s a lso the e ve nt that Ms . Ru c ke r a lle ge s f orms the ba sis fo r h e r w his tle blo we r c la im. Ac c or din g to Ms. Ruc ke r, sh e wa s p a ge d b y a sta ff me mbe r t o th e Ho sp ita l’ s c ri tic a l c are un it t o ta lk
to a patie nt’ s famil y me mbe rs . M s. Ruc ke r m e t w ith thepatie nt’ s w if e a ndsis te r. Ac c or din g to Ms. Rucker, the patient’s wife informed he r that one of the unit nurses (who ha d been ca ri ng for the patient during the morning shift) had returne d from lunch a cting strangely, a nd in a manner that led the patient’s wif

e to think the nurse was impaire d. The c harge nurse ha d informed the patient’s wife that she was awa

re of the situation, and that she (not the a llegedly impaired nur se) would be caring for the patient for the r emainder of the shift. Howe ver, the allegedly impaire d nurse ha d continued
to e nte r the patie nt’ s r oo m.

Ms. Ruc ker’ s own e-mail description of the incide nt reve als that she re cognize d the situation

a s o n e t h a t c o u l d g i v e r i s e t o s e r i o u s r i s k m a n a g e m e n t i m p l i c a t i o n s , t o w i t : “ G i v e n t h e e xtr e me ly sensitive nature of this situation, i t had Risk Manageme nt written all over it, in my estimation, and that th is w a s d e fi nit e ly a

ma tte r f or the Cr iti c a l Ca

re Di re c tor

a ndhis Clin ic a l L e a de rs to a dd re ss, NOT me....” Neve rtheless, Ms. Rucker did not call Ms. L anca ster, as she had been instructed to do in these situation. Rather, Ms. Ruc ker went to the patient’ s room, with his wife, and a ddresse d the situatio n d ir e c tly wi th the c ha rg e nu rs e

. Ms. Ruc ke r the n we nt to fi nd the Clin ic a l L e a de r, Saramma Geor ge. Ms. Geor ge cha stised Ms. Rucker for bringing the patient’s wife back into the unit during non-visiting hours, and called the Critical Care Direc tor, Marc o Fernande z. Ms. R ucker explained to Ms. George that, as the fir st responder to a fa mily members’ complaint, she wa s the wife’ s “advoc ate.” Eventua lly, Janet Cornett, a supervisor, was notified, a nd Ms. Cornett escorte d the allegedly impaire d nurse of f the unit. Ms. Rucker testifies that she t hen spent approximately three hours with the patient’s wif e, trying to assure her until she felt safe

. Ms. Lanca ster wa s never called du ri ng thi s in c ide nt.-6-

The following day, Ms. L anca ster learned of the incident from employees of the critica l car e unit. Ms. Lancaster

then initiated an investigation, and a sked Ms

. Rucker to draf t a stateme nt of her version of the events. In this statement, Ms. Rucke r desc ribed he r ver sion of the eve nts, and adde d that she was hurt by the “witch hunt and an attack on my c hara cter and intentions develope d into a

c omp la int a ga ins t me fo r w ro ng -d oin g. ” Ms. Ruc ke r s ta te d th a t, h a d s he kn ow n the eve nt w ou ld

esca late, she “ would certainly have c alled [Ms. La ncaste r] without hesitation.” Conce rning what she would have done differ ently, Ms. Rucker stated that “I haven’t come up with them [i.e. ideas about ho w s he wo uld ha ve a c te d d if fe re ntl y in the situatio n] oth e r tha n a s [ Ms. La nc a ste r] state s, I s ho uld have c alled her

first.”

Ms. Lanca ster asse rts that Ms. Rucker botched the handling of the situation in two si gnificant ways. First, she neglec ted to call Ms. Lanc aster s o t h at risk manage ment could get involved. Second, she f

ailed to attempt to restore the wife ’s fa ith that the manger s of the critica l c are unit were taking car e of the situation. Upo n co n cl u d i n g their investigation, Ms. Lanca ster and the Human Resource s repr esentative, Tere sa Da niel, met with Ms. Ru cker to review their findings and

c on c lus ion s. T h e s ef

i nd ing s a ndc on c lus ion s a

reme moria liz e d in a n “ As so c ia te Con fe re nc e Re po rt ” dated Nove mber 3, 2005. In this Report, Ms. Lanc aster e xpresse s her conce rn t hat Ms. Rucker ha d

a ga in f a ile d to asse ss a

situatio n c or

re c tly , d e sp ite the fa c t th a t Ms . Ru c ke r r e c og niz e d th e ri sk manage ment implications. Ms. Lanca ster also noted that Ms. Rucker admitted that she should have

c a lle d Ms. La nc a ste r. Ms. La nc a ste r co nc lud e d tha t Ms . Ru c ke r’ s in abil ity to f oll ow ins truc tio ns , and her failure to function within the scope of her r esponsibiliti es, re ndere d Ms. Rucker inef fec tive in the PRC position

. Ac cordingly, Ms. Lanc aster r emoved Ms. Rucke r fr om the PRC position. Howeve r, Ms. Rucker ’s employment with the Hospital wa s n o t terminated. Rathe r, the Hospital indicated that it would continue to pay he r salary for thirt y d ay s , there by giving Ms. R ucker the op po rtun ity to s e c ur e a no the r j ob wi thi n th e Ho sp ita l.

Ms. Rucker wr ote a r esponse to the Report, where in she stated that the “unfair treatment and false alle g a ti o n s ” ma d e b y M s

. L a n c a s te r a n d D r

. T h o ma s w e r e “ b a s e d s o le ly o n a p e r s o n al vendetta.” Ms. Rucker vowe d to “continue to fight for justice, equa lity and my right to be heard.” In h er r esponse, Ms. Rucke r make s no mention of the whistleblower c laim she raise s in her Complaint–t hat she wa s fired for reporting a n impaired nurse . When a sked, at he r deposition, why sh e wa s f ir e d, Ms. Ruc ke r s ta te d, in r e le va nt p art :
Q. Why do you think you wer e re m o v ed from the patient relations coordinator position?

A. We ll
, I d o n ’ t th in k it h a d a n y th in g to d o w ith th a t n u r s e in the po ds . I thi nk th at was ye t a no the r o pp ortun ity to h ara ss m e in m y role, a s was the situation with [Ms. Davis and her son’s dayca re] , as was the na rr at ive part of my perf ormanc e appr aisal ac cusing me of stealing food fr om noon con fe re nce. G olly, I don’t know. Ther e’s nothing I want to know more than to know why I’m not doing t hat job today.-7-

Following her removal from the PRC pos ition, Ms. R ucker began looking for

another job with the Hospi tal. She made inquiries into four positions. Although she was of fer ed a job a s a staff

nu rs e in o nc olo gy a nd plann e d to a c c e pt the po sit ion , s he ult imate ly d e c lin e d th e job be c a us e it p a id le ss that the PRC pos iti on

. Be c a us e Ms. Ruc ke r h a d n ot p ro c ur e d a ne w p os iti on wi thi n th e thi rt y days, her employment with the Hospital ended in De cembe r 2005. Ms. Ruc ker did not work from De c e mbe r 2 00 5 u nti l Ju ne 20 06 , w he n s he a c c e pte d a $6 2, 00 0 p e r y e ar j ob wi th the Vand e rb ilt Institute for Clinical and Tr anslational Resea rch.

On December

15, 2005, Ms. Rucker f

iled suit against the Hospital, alleging both a violation of the Tenne ssee Public Protec tion Act (T.C.A. § 50-1- 304) and c ommon-law re taliatory dischar ge. Specifica lly, Ms. R ucker

asserts that her employment was terminated i n reta liation for reporting that

a n u r s e w a s imp a ir e d

. O n Fe b ru ar y 2
, 2 0 0 6
, th e H o s p it a l a n s w e r e d a n d d e n ie d a ll li ab il ity. On Ja nu ary 15
, 20 07
, the Ho sp ital f ile d a mot ion fo r s umm ary jud gme nt. Ms. Ruc ke r d id n ot c on te st the Hospital’s motion with respe ct to the statutory claims. Thus, the only cla im in contention was he r c omm on -l a w c la im.

On Marc h 5, 2007, the trial court entere d an orde r gra nting the Hospital’s m o t i o n for summary j udgment as to both of Ms. Rucker’ s claims. Ms. Rucker a ppeals a nd raises one issue for

re v ie w a s s tate d in h e r

b r ie f : “ D idth e tria l j u d g e e rr inc o n c lu d in g th a t th e r e e x is te d n o g e n u ine issues of material fac t as to the plaintiff’s c ommon-law cla im for re taliatory dischar ge?”

It is well settled that motion for summary judgment sh o u l d b e granted when the movant demonstrates that there a

re no genuine i ssues of m aterial fac t and that the m oving party is entit led to a judgment as a matter of law

. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. The mov i n g p ar t y fo r sum mary jud gme nt be ars the bu rd e n o f d e mon str a tin g th a t no ge nu ine iss ue of ma te ri a l f

a c t e xis ts. Se e Bain
v . W e lls , 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn.1997) . On a motion for summary judgment, the court must t ake the str onges t leg it imate vie w o f e vid e nc e in f a vo r o f the no nmo vin g p art y, a llo w a ll r e a so na ble infere nces in fa vor of that pa rty, and disca

rd all counte rvailing evidenc e. See id. In By rd v . Ha ll
, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn.1993) , our Supreme Court state d:

Once it is shown by the moving party that there is no g enuine issue of material fac t, the nonmoving party mus t then demonstrate , by aff idavits or di scovery materia l, that there is a ge nuine, material fac t dispute to w arr ant a tria l. In this regar d, Rule 56.05 provides that the nonmoving party ca nnot simply rely upon his pleadings but must set forth specific facts s howing that there is a genuine issue of material fa c t f or tr ia l. Id . at 210-11 (c itations omi tted).

Summary judgment is only appropriate whe n the fa cts and the legal c onclusions drawn f rom the fa cts rea sonabl y p ermit only one conc lusion. Se e Carv e ll v . Bo tto ms , 900 S.W.2d 23, 26 (T e nn .1 99 5). B e c a us e on ly q ue sti on s o f l a w a re inv olv e d, the re is n o p re su mpt ion of c or re c tne ss rega rd i n g a trial court's grant or de nial of summary judgment. Se e Bain , 926 S.W.2d at 622. Th e re fo re , our re vie w of

the tr ia l c ou rt 's gr a nt o f s umm ary jud gme nt i s de novo on the re cord be fore this Court. Se e Wa rre n v . Es tate of Kir k , 954 S.W.2d 722, 723 (Tenn.1997)

.-8-

To prevail on a claim of c ommon law reta liatory dischar ge, an e mployee must prove: (1) that

an at- w il l e mp lo y me n t r e lati o n s h ip e x is te d b e tw e e n th e e mp lo y e e a n d th e e mp lo y e r , ( 2 ) th a t the employe e w a s d is c h ar g e d
, ( 3 ) th a t th e e mp lo y e e w a s d is c h ar g e d f o r a tt e mp ti n g to e x e rcise a statutory or constitutional right, or for a ny other re ason that violates a c lear public policy , and (4) that such action was a substantial fac tor in the employer's decision t o discharge the employee

. See Guy v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. C o. , 79 S.W .3 d at 53 5; see also Anderson v. Stan dard Register Co.
, 857 S.W.2d 555, 557-58 (Te nn.1993).

Th e ma te ri a l f

a c ts i n th is ca se are un dis pu te d a nddo c ume nte d in the re c or d. On app e a l, M s. Rucker a sserts that the issues in this case hinge up o n wi tness cre dibilit y, as they involve motive, int e nt, a nd

/or pe rc e pti on . A c c or din gly , s he a sse rt s th a t th is c a se is n ot ripe fo r s umm ary jud gme nt. See, e.g.
, Knapp v. Holiday Inns, In c. , 682 S.W.2d 936, 941-42 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984) (“[ I] f t he opponent to a motion for summary judgment succ eeds in raising a genuine doubt conc erning a witness' cre dibilit y by a suff icient showing of the witness' bias, pr ejudice, or interest, the summary jud gme nt s ho uldbe de nie d, a ndthe c a se sh ou ld be de c ide d by the tr ie r of fa c t.” ). W e dis a gr e e wi th Ms. Rucker’ s assertion. As set out above, the materia l fac ts in thi s case are documented in writing. Furthe rm or e , th e re is n o a lle gatio n o r p ro of that th e se re c or ds are fa

bric a te d, or that th e y o the rw ise de viate fr om the a c tua l c on ve rs a tio ns , w hic h th e y doc ume nt. Con se qu e ntl y, the qu e sti on of wi tne ss
cre dibilit y is not dispos itive here . The re spective doc uments are unambiguous, and, there fore , there is n o n e e d f

or a tr ie r o f f a c t.

T u r n in g to the pr im a fac ie case for c ommon-law re taliatory dischar ge, Ms. Rucker has proven only criterion one –that there existed an at-will employment relationship. As to the sec ond criterion–that plaintiff was discha rged, a s set out above, Ms. Rucke r’ s em p loyment was not terminated by the Hospital. Upon re moving her fr om her PRC posit ion, she was given thirty da ys to p ro c ur e oth e r e mpl oy me nt within the Ho sp ita l. Th e re c or d s ho ws that Ms . Ru c ke r w a s, in f a c t, of fe re d a nu rs ing job , b ut that she declined that positi on beca use it paid less that the PRC posi tion. Ev e n thou gh thi s dec isi on ult imate ly r e su lte d in Ms. Ruc ke r l e a vin g th e e mpl oy me nt o f the Ho sp ita l, this consequenc e flowe d direc tly from Ms. Rucker’ s decision to decline the offe red position–a decision that wa s hers, a lone.

Even if we assume, arguendo (which w e do n o t ), t h at Ms. Rucker’ s employment was terminated by the Hospital, the rec ord does not support a finding that the discha rge w as re taliatory in nature. The re is no evide nce in this rec ord that Ms. Ruc ker ever felt that she could not r eport the allegedly impaire d nurse. I n fac t, the evidenc e in re cord indicates just the opposite–that Ms. Rucker

was encou ra ge d to se e k o ut c omp la int s a ndpr ob le ms i n th e Ho sp ita l. T he su btl e fa c t is that Ms

. Rucker f a il e d
, n o t in th e f

a c t o f th e r e p o r ti n g , b u t in th e man n e r o f th e r e p o r ti n g

. D e spite being given un a mb ig u o u s in s tr u c ti o n s to b r in g a n y matt e r w ith r is k

man a g e me n t i mp li c a ti o n s to the immediate attention of Ms. L an ca s t er, the rec ord shows that Ms. Rucker ignored this direc tive. Moreove r, Ms. Rucker

admits that she should have r eporte d the allege dly impaired nurse situation to M s. La nc a ste r. Th e re c or d s ho ws that th is wa s no t the on ly inc ide nt w he re Ms. Ruc ke r f a ile d to follow proper

protocol. As set out above, there were numerous incidents whe re Ms. Rucke r broke the sp e c if ic c ha in o f c omm a ndthat sh e wa s g ive n to fo llo w. Al tho ug h w e con c e de that Ms

. Rucker’ s motives may have be en pure , she simply did not s tay within the boundaries of her position,

no r d id s he fu lf

ill the e xp e c ta tio ns of

that jo b inte rm s o f a c c umu la tin g d a ta . Cons equ ently, Ms.-9-

Rucker f ails to establish the fourth, and final, criterion for c ommon-law re taliatory dischar ge–that the protec ted ac tivity was a substantial f actor in he r discharge from Hospital employment. As set

ou t a bo ve , in he r d e po sit ion , M s. Ruc ke r s ta te s that sh e do e s n ot thin k h e r re mov a l f ro m th e PRC po sit ion ha d a ny thi ng to do wi th the a lle ge dly imp a ir e d n ur se inc ide nt. W e a gr e e . A lth ou gh Ms. Ru c k e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t h e r r e m o v a l w a s j u s t o n e m o r e e x a m p l e o f t h e “ h ar a s s m e n t ” sh e c la ims to have e xperie nced, w e find no e vidence of re taliation in this case

. Rather, the rec ord evinces a string of shortcomings, deviations, and ove rstepping on the part of Ms. Rucker, whic h wer e not re medied despite the numer ous opportunities given by the Hospital. In short, Ms. Rucker has fa iled to meet her bur den in this case.

For the fore going rea sons, we affirm the Orde r of the trial court, granting summ ary judgment in favor of

the Hospital. Costs of this appe al are assessed a gainst the Appellant, Sere na Rucke r, and her sur ety.

__________________________________________ W. FRANK CRAWFORD, JUDGE