Opinion ID: 2369875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tennessee Human Rights Act

Text: An action under the Tennessee Human Rights Act must be filed in chancery or circuit court within one (1) year after the alleged discriminatory practice ceases... . Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-311 (Supp. 1996). [3] To answer the question of commencement, therefore, we must first identify the alleged discriminatory practice. Here, Weber alleges that Jefferson Pilot terminated his contract because he opposed and refused to participate in the company's policy of race and sex discrimination, a policy that is unlawful under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Therefore, he alleges that the decision to terminate his contract constituted a discriminatory practice. Having identified the discriminatory practice, we must next determine the date on which the discriminatory practice ended. This is the pivotal issue on appeal. Weber argues that the discriminatory practice did not cease until he received written notice pursuant to his employment contract. In contrast, the defendants argue that the alleged discriminatory practice, the decision to terminate Weber's contract, was completed and ended in early August when Weber was orally advised by his immediate supervisor. The stated purpose and intent of the Tennessee Human Rights Act is to provide for execution, within Tennessee, of the policies embodied in the analogous federal anti-discrimination laws. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a)(1) (1991 Repl.). Consequently, as we have previously held, it is appropriate to examine federal law when analyzing issues under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Bennett v. Steiner-Liff Iron and Metal Co., 826 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tenn. 1992). In this case, we begin our analysis of the question of what constitutes cessation of the alleged discriminatory practice with two United States Supreme Court decisions which addressed the commencement of the limitations period in employment discharge actions. In Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980), a faculty member alleged that he had been denied academic tenure because of his national origin. In February, 1973, the faculty tenure committee recommended that Ricks not receive a tenured position. The tenure committee, however, agreed to reconsider its decision the following year. Upon reconsideration in February, 1974, the committee adhered to its earlier recommendation, and on March 13, 1974, the Board of Trustees formally voted to deny tenure to Ricks. Dissatisfied with the decision, Ricks immediately filed a grievance with the Board's grievance committee, which in May of 1974 held a hearing and took the matter under advisement. During the pendency of the matter, the College administration continued to plan for Ricks' eventual termination. Ricks was not immediately terminated, however, but was instead, on June 26, 1974, offered a terminal contract to teach one additional year, with the contract expiring on June 30, 1975. Ricks accepted the contract in September of 1974. Shortly thereafter, on September 12, Ricks was notified that his grievance had been denied. Ricks filed suit on September 9, 1977. A three-year statute of limitations applied and the issue addressed by the United States Supreme Court was when did Ricks' cause of action accrue. If the relevant statute of limitations commenced, as Ricks claimed, on the expiration of the terminal contract, then his suit would have been timely filed; however, if the limitations period commenced on notification of the denial of tenure, the suit would have been time-barred. As did we in this appeal, the Ricks ' Court, first identified precisely the unlawful employment practice of which the plaintiff complains. Id., 449 U.S. at 257, 101 S.Ct. at 503. The Court concluded that it was the decision to deny tenure which had allegedly been influenced by an impermissible factor. According to the Court, because Ricks, on learning of the denial of tenure had notice of all the allegedly wrongful acts that he later sought to challenge, the statute of limitations was deemed to commence at that time. Id., 449 U.S. at 258, 101 S.Ct. at 504. The Court stressed that the termination of Ricks' employment was not an independent discriminatory act, but merely the delayed, but inevitable, consequence of the denial of tenure. Id., 449 U.S. at 257-58, 101 S.Ct. at 504. The Court emphasized that [t]he proper focus is upon the time of the discriminatory acts, not upon the time at which the consequences of the acts become most painful. Id., 449 U.S. at 258, 101 S.Ct. at 504. Mere continuity of employment, without more, is insufficient to prolong the life of a cause of action for employment discrimination. Id., 449 U.S. at 257, 101 S.Ct. at 504. Therefore, the Court found that the limitations period commenced to run when the tenure decision was made and Ricks was notified. Identifying the latest possible triggering date as June 26, 1974, when Ricks was offered the terminal contract, the Court held the action was time-barred. Significantly, the Court in Ricks rejected the arguments of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in an amicus curiae brief, that the tenure decision was not made until September 12, 1974, when Ricks was notified that his grievance had been denied, or in the alternative, that the pending grievance tolled the statute of limitations. The Court stated: We do not find either argument to be persuasive. As to the former, we think that the Board of Trustees had made clear well before September 12 that it had formally rejected Ricks' tenure bid. The June 26 letter itself characterized that as the Board's official position. It is apparent, of course that the Board in the June 26 letter indicated a willingness to change its prior decision if Ricks' grievance were found to be meritorious. But entertaining a grievance complaining of the tenure decision does not suggest that the earlier decision was in any respect tentative. The grievance procedure, by its nature, is a remedy for a prior decision, not an opportunity to influence that decision before it is made. As to the latter argument, we already have held that the pendency of a grievance, or some other method of collateral review of an employment decision, does not toll the running of the limitations periods. The existence of careful procedures to assure fairness in the tenure decision should not obscure the principle that limitations periods normally commence when the employer's decision is made. Id., 449 U.S. at 261, 101 S.Ct. at 505 (footnotes and internal citations omitted)(emphasis in original). In Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 102 S.Ct. 28, 70 L.Ed.2d 6 (1981), the Court applied the Ricks analysis in holding that suits challenging politically-motivated firings brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were time-barred because of a failure to file within the one-year limitations period. In that case, plaintiffs, administrators in the Puerto Rico Department of Education, were notified that their appointments would terminate on a specified date in the future. Id., 454 U.S. at 7, 102 S.Ct. at 28. On filing the cause of action after termination, the employees contended that the limitations period should begin to run on the date of their termination from employment, rather than the date on which they were notified of the employer's termination decision. In ruling that the plaintiffs' actions, brought more than one-year after receipt of the notice of termination were time-barred, the Court reiterated its holding in Ricks that the proper focus is on the time of the discriminatory act not the point at which the consequences of the act become painful. Id., 454 U.S. at 8, 102 S.Ct. at 29 (emphasis in original). The Court pointed out that the discriminatory practice challenged was not the termination of employment, but the decision of the employer to terminate employment for political reasons. Therefore, the Court found Ricks indistinguishable from Chardon because in each case, the operative decision was made  and notice given  in advance of a designated date on which employment terminated. Chardon, 454 U.S. at 9, 102 S.Ct. at 29. Therefore, under the Ricks / Chardon analysis, [4] a discriminatory termination ceases and is complete, when the plaintiff is given unequivocal notice of the employer's termination decision, even if employment does not cease until a designated date in the future. See also, Shell v. State, 893 S.W.2d 416, 422 (Tenn. 1995) (an action for the negligent deprivation of a constitutional right accrues at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct, not when the results of the wrongful conduct cease to have an effect on the plaintiff); Webster v. Tennessee Board of Regents, 902 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. App. 1995)(one-year limitations period began to run when university administrator was given notice that he would be terminated from his employment, rather than the date on which the administrator's contract for services ended); Janikowski v. Bendix Corp., 823 F.2d 945, 947 (6th Cir.1987)(a plaintiff's cause of action accrues when he receives a notice of termination, not when his employment actually ceases); Price v. Litton Business Sys., Inc., 694 F.2d 963 (4th Cir.1982)(plaintiff's claim began to run when he was told he would be relieved of his position rather than when he finally left the company). To avoid the preclusive effect of the Ricks and Chardon analysis, Weber argues that the oral notification he received was not definite and final. He urges that he was not unequivocally informed by a duly authorized representative that Jefferson Pilot had decided to terminate his contract until he received the written notice on September 1, 1992. Regardless of the clarity of the oral notice, Weber also claims that his written employment agreement mandating written notice of termination, also controls the mode of notice necessary to trigger the limitations period. We find both arguments unpersuasive. In a letter dated August 5, 1992 and addressed to Walden, a regional vice-president at Jefferson Pilot's home office, Weber requests that Jefferson Pilot reconsider your decision to terminate my Sales Manager contract. By his own words, Weber revealed his awareness that Jefferson Pilot previously had decided to terminate his sales manager contract. Moreover, in his affidavit filed in this cause, Weber stated that I, therefore, continued to hope that I would not be terminated until I received written verification of my termination as sales manager. (Emphasis added.) Again, by his own words, Weber has admitted that he was aware of Jefferson Pilot's decision and only hoped that it would be changed. An employee's hope for rehire, transfer, promotion, or a continuing employment relationship cannot toll the statute of limitations absent some employer conduct likely to mislead an employee into sleeping on his rights. Price, 694 F.2d at 965. There is no evidence to show that Weber was misinformed or mislead about the finality of Jefferson Pilot's termination decision. [5] Indeed Weber's understanding of the finality of the decision is unmistakable from his use of the phrase, written verification of my termination, in his affidavit. The term verification is defined as confirmation of correctness, truth or authenticity. Black's Law Dictionary 1400 (5th ed. 1979). Certainly a decision can not be confirmed if it has not already been made. Moreover, under Ricks , the existence of a grievance procedure does not change the principle that the statute of limitations begins to run when the termination decision is made. Id., 449 U.S. at 261, 101 S.Ct. at 505; see also Kessler v. Board of Regents, 738 F.2d 751, 754 (6th Cir.1984). Likewise the existence of a written contract of employment designating the method by which the contract may be terminated is not relevant to calculating the date on which the statute of limitations commenced. [6] See Jones v. Baskin, Flaherty, Elliot and Mannino, 738 F. Supp. 937, 939 (W.D.Pa. 1989)(plaintiff can not claim that he was not aware of the alleged discrimination even though he did not receive written notice of his termination sixty days in advance and have his termination ratified by eighty percent of the Board of Directors as required by the shareholder and employment agreement); cf. Mull v. ARCO Durethene Plastics, Inc., 784 F.2d 284 (7th Cir.1986) (a letter designating a future date on which plaintiff would be terminated does not change the fact that plaintiff had previously received unequivocal notice of termination which triggered the statute of limitations). Acceptance of Weber's argument would inject uncertainty into tort law and defeat the purposes of statutes of limitations which are designed to ensure fairness, prevent undue delay, and preserve evidence from the dangers inherent in the passage of time. Potts v. Celotex Corp., 796 S.W.2d 678, 681 (Tenn. 1990); see generally Developments in the Law: Statutes of Limitations, 63 Harv.L.Rev. 1176, 1185 (1950). Applying the Ricks / Chardon analysis to the facts in this case, we conclude that the limitations period began to run, at the latest, on August 5, 1992 when Weber knew of the defendants' decision to terminate his contract. Accordingly, Weber's claim under the Tennessee Human Rights Act, filed on August 31, 1993, is time-barred by the one-year limitations period.