Opinion ID: 810466
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tennessee Human Rights Act

Text: Citing Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., 320 S.W.3d 777, 779 (Tenn. 2010), Plaintiffs next argue that the district court applied an incorrect summary judgment standard to their claims brought under the THRA. In Gossett, the Tennessee Supreme Court reasoned that it was inappropriate to use the McDonnell Douglas framework to decide summary judgment motions for claims brought under the THRA, inasmuch as the McDonnell Douglas framework was incompatible with Tennessee’s own summary judgment jurisprudence. However, shortly thereafter, the Tennessee legislature abrogated 6 There remains an outstanding factual dispute as to when the supervisor surveys were introduced into the promotions process. Plaintiffs allege that the surveys were introduced during a delay that followed the announcement of the eligibility rosters; Serpas testified in his deposition, however, that he made the decision to conduct the surveys when the new promotions procedure was announced. 35 Nos. 10-6102/11-5174 Gossett by statute. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-311(e); see also Bobo v. UPS, 665 F.3d 741, 757 (6th Cir. 2012). Plaintiffs’ argument on this point is therefore moot.