Opinion ID: 1458158
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: retaliatory discharge and whistleblower claims

Text: Nance appears to argue that Goodyear terminated her for reporting dangerous working conditions in violation of the Tennessee Public Protection Act, also known as the Whistleblower Law, Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-1-304(a), but fails to cite either statute in her appellate brief or develop the argument with specificity. Accordingly, her argument is waived. See Indeck Energy Serv., Inc. v. Consumers Energy Co., 250 F.3d 972, 979 (6th Cir. 2000) ([I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived ....) (citation omitted). Even if we were to consider this argument, to make a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge under the Act, the employee must prove that she was actually discharged. Guy v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 79 S.W.3d 528, 535 (Tenn.2002). For the reasons set forth above, Nance has not met this requirement.