FILED

October 2, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

MARK McCAI N, ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9603- CV- 00099

)

Pl a i ntif f - Appe lla nt , ) BLOUNT LAW

)

v. ) HON. W. DALE YOUNG,

) J UDGE,

AI RPORT HONDA a nd BOB ) 

RUTHERFORD, ) AFFI RMED

) AND

De f e nda nt s - Appe l l ees . ) REMANDED

KEVI N W. SHEPHERD, Ma r yville , for Pl a i ntif f - Appe lla nt .

BEECHER A. BARTLETT, J R. , a nd ADRI ENNE L. ANDERSON, KRAMER,

RAYSON, LEAKE, RODGERS & MORGAN, Knoxvi l l e , f or De f e nda nt s -

Appe l l ees .

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

I n t hi s a c t i on a s ki ng da ma ge s f or a l l e ge d

r e t a l i a t or y di s c ha r ge , t he Tr i a l Cour t gr a nt e d e mpl oye r

s umma r y j udgme nt , a nd pl a i nt i f f ha s a ppe a l e d. We a f f i r m.

Pl a i nt i f f wa s hi r e d by Ai r por t Honda a s a us e d c a r

s a l e s ma n i n Fe br ua r y of 1994. Hi s i mme di a t e s upe r vi s or wa s

de f e nda nt Bob Rut he r f or d. Pl a i nt i f f t e s t i f i e d i n hi s

de pos i t i on t ha t he di s c ove r e d t ha t f e l l ow e mpl oye e s we r e

f or gi ng c us t ome r s ’ na me s t o c ont r a c t s f or s e r vi c e s t he y di d
2

not r e que s t . He r e por t e d t hi s t o t he ge ne r a l ma na ge r f or

Ai r por t Honda , a nd t o J ohn St i dha m, a n a s s i s t a nt us e d c a r

ma na ge r . Appr oxi ma t e l y s i x we e ks a f t e r pl a i nt i f f r e por t e d t he

f or ge r i e s , he wa s t e r mi na t e d by Rut he r f or d.

Pl a i ntif f ins i s t s the r e is a di s put e d is s ue of

ma t e r i a l f a c t a nd t he gr a nt i ng of s umma r y j udgme nt wa s i n

e rror .

A t r i a l c our t s houl d gr a nt s umma r y j udgme nt onl y i f

t he mova nt de mons t r a t e s t he r e a r e no ge nui ne i s s ue s of

ma t e r i a l f a c t a nd tha t the movi ng pa r t y is e ntitle d to

j udgme nt a s a ma t t e r of law. T. R. C. P. Rul e 56. 03. The c our t

mus t ta ke the s t r onge s t le gitima t e vi e w of the e vi de nc e in

f a vor of t he nonmovi ng pa r t y, a l l ow a l l r e a s ona bl e i nf e r e nc e s

i n f a vor of t ha t pa r t y, a nd di s c a r d a l l c ount e r va i l i ng

e vi de nce. By r d v. Hal l , 847 S. W. 2d 208 ( Te nn. 1993) . 

The r e qui s i t e el e me nt s of a r e t a l i a t or y di s c ha r ge

a r e s e t f or t h i n Ande r s on v . St andar d Re gi s t e r Co. :

( 1) The pl a i nt i f f wa s a n e mpl oye e of t he de f e nda nt

a t the time of the inj ur y; ( 2) the pl a i ntif f ma de a

c l a i m a ga i ns t t he de f e nda nt f or wor ke r s ’

c ompe ns a t i on be ne f i t s ; ( 3) t he de f e nda nt t e r mi na t e d

t he pl a i nt i f f ’ s e mpl oyme nt ; a nd ( 4) t he c l a i m f or

wor ke r s ’ c ompe ns a t i on be ne f i t s wa s a s ubs t a nt i a l

f a c t or in the e mpl oye r ’ s motiva tion to te r mi na t e the

e mpl oye e ’ s e mpl oyme nt .

857 S. W. 2d 555, 558 ( Te nn. 1993) .

I n t hi s c a s e , t he Tr i a l Cour t c onc l ude d t he

pl a i nt i f f f a i l e d to s how the f our t h e l eme nt, a c a us a l

c onne c t i on be t we e n t he r e por t i ng of t he a l l e ge d f or ge r i e s a nd

hi s di s mi s s a l. Although the e l eme nt s in Ande r s on i nvol ve a

wor ke r s ’ c ompe ns a t i on c a s e , t he y a r e i n a c c or d wi t h t he

r e qui r e me nt s t ha t ha ve be e n e nunc i a t e d f or ot he r t ype s of
3

c ommon- l a w r e t a l i a t or y di s c ha r ge s ui t s . See, e. g. , Reynol ds

v . Oz ar k Mot or Li ne s , I nc . , 887 S. W. 2d 822, 825 ( Te nn. 1994) . 

The pl a i nt i f f be a r s t he bur de n of s howi ng t he c a us a l

r e l a t i ons hi p, Ande r s on. I n t hi s c a s e , t he onl y e vi de nc e

l i nki ng t he di s mi s s a l a nd t he ?whi s tle bl owi ng? wa s pl a i ntif f ’ s

r e por t i ng t he a l l e ge d f or ge r y t o a s upe r vi s or a nd hi s

t e r mi na t i on f r om t he e mpl oyme nt s i x we e ks l a t e r .

Evi de nc e of c a us a t i on r e qui r e s mor e t ha n t he f a c t s

s howi ng e mpl oyme nt , t he e xe r c i s e of r i ght s , a nd a s ubs e que nt

di s c ha r ge . Thomas on v . Be t t e r - Bi l t Al umi num Pr oduc t s , I nc . ,

831 S. W. 2d 291, 293 ( Te nn. App. 1992) . I t r e qui r e s di r e c t

e vi de nce or compe l l i ng ci r c ums t a nt i a l evi de nce. I d. Al s o se e

Mos k al v. Fi r s t Te nne s s ee Bank , 810 S. W. 2d 509 ( Te nn. App.

1991) . The pl a i nt i f f ’ s me r e ?be l i e f or unde r s t a ndi ng? of why

he wa s di s mi s s e d, i s not s uf f i c i e nt t o c r e a t e a ge nui ne i s s ue

of ma t e r i a l f act . Ne ws om v. Text r on Ae r os t r uc t ur e s , 924

S. W. 2d 87 ( Te nn. App. 1995) . The Te nne s s e e Supr e me Cour t ha s

r e j ect e d t he i dea t ha t a s hor t l e ngt h of t i me be t ween t he

i nc i de nt a nd the di s mi s s a l c ons titut e s a pr i ma f ac i e s howi ng

of r e t a l i a t i on. Conat s e r v . Cl ar k s v i l l e Coc a- Col a, 920 S. W. 2d

646 ( Te nn. 1995) ( di s mi s s a l t hr e e da ys a f t e r r e t ur ni ng t o wor k

f r om i nj ur y r e c upe r a t i on wa s i ns uf f i c i e nt t o s how c a us a l

c onne c t i on) .

While the Conat s e r c our t quot e d a tr e a tis e s t a ting

?pr oxi mi t y i n t i me wi t hout e vi de nc e of s a t i s f a c t or y j ob

pe r f or ma nc e doe s not ma ke a pr i ma f ac i e cas e , ? s ome e vi de nc e

of pl a i nt i f f ’ s s a t i s f a c t or y j ob pe r f or ma nc e i s not c ompe l l i ng

c i r c ums t a nt i a l evi de nce of t he caus a l connect i on.

Ac c or di ngl y, we c onc l ude t he Tr i a l Cour t di d not e r r i n
4

gr a nt i ng s umma r y j udgme nt t o de f e nda nt . 

Pl a i nt i f f ur ge s t ha t t he Tr i a l Cour t s houl d ha ve

gr a nt e d hi s mot i on f or a c ont i nua nc e . The mot i on wa s ma de on

t he da t e of t he he a r i ng f or s umma r y j udgme nt . The pl a i nt i f f

a r gue s t he mot i on s houl d ha ve be e n gr a nt e d, be c a us e unt i l t he

mot i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt wa s f i l e d, de f e nda nt ha d not

de l i ve r e d di s c ove r y ma t e r i a l s r e que s t e d. 

The t r i a l c our t ha s br oa d di s c r e t i on i n de t e r mi ni ng

whe t he r t o gr a nt a r e que s t f or c ont i nua nc e . Bar be r and

Mc Mur r y , I nc . V. Top- Fl i t e De v e l opme nt Cor por at i on, I nc . , 720

S. W. 2d 469, 471 ( Te nn. App. 1986) . I n or de r t o de mons t r a t e a n

a bus e of di s c r e t i on, a pa r t y mus t s how s ome pr e j udi c e or

s ur pr i s e whi c h a r i s e s out of the tr i a l c our t ’ s f a ilur e to

gr a nt a c ont i nua nc e . Commi s s i one r of De par t me nt of

Tr ans por t at i on v . Hal l , 635 S. W. 2d 110 ( Te nn. 1982) . Mos t of

t he l a t e f i l e d di s c ove r y de a l t wi t h pr ovi ng t he f or ge r y, a n

a l l e ga t i on whi c h wa s t o be a s s ume d t r ue f or t he pur pos e s of

t he s umma r y j udgme nt he a r i ng. The e xhi bi t s whi c h we r e

r e l e va nt t o t he hear i ng we r e ava i l a bl e f or r e vi e w by t he

a ppe l l a nt f or s e ve r a l weeks . The r e wa s no pr e j udi ce f r om t he

Tr i a l Cour t ’ s f a i l ur e t o gr a nt a c ont i nua nc e . Ac c or di ngl y, we

f i nd no a bus e of di s c r e t i on.

De f e nda nt s ha ve r a i s e d a n i s s ue whi c h we f i nd t o be

wi t hout me r i t a nd t he r e i s no ne e d t o a ddr e s s t he i s s ue .

The j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Cour t i s a f f i r me d, t he

c os t of t he appeal i s as s e s s e d t o appe l l a nt , and t he caus e

r e ma nde d. 
5

________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

CONCUR:

___________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .

___________________________

Cha r l e s D. Sus a no, J r ., J .