WPCs x=SbY 96NNuЮ8F~Dn)t[e4 oh@Nv==&;E ̈q B8#,ާ?INiL't!Gx鑵˜󅃂Eu5IĻt&g'ߍ"suxQCfUlrA;զ$#hVE5C ?F.5_SaPШywP%HA4>/@h髙wWsr& 5'λg۹m*z"PH~#CPi'(==,7vzɯ j>s~'Ӈߐ'l 8p+` d04=**-?n|eXo ̐0Wj x~#Z^DA;_8gEzs呯lE$D}PjVJ$f2RvN?½sEF۹9W# U N % 04!bU 0]^ W bc Nk w@m 4   0DT  m   U: AQ E 0D  0DO 0D D/ B D3############################################# BVHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl("  Z6Times New Roman Regular( U$  - -(G2O$ U!   XXYX     `   0  XYXXXY‘&c- - EEEeӀs~&3|x z O$  XXYX @ @   `   1  XYXXXY  _SeeActofMarch29,1990,ch.771,1990Tenn.Pub.Acts256,codifiedasamendedat  Tenn.CodeAnn.501304(Supp.1998)(#$  0  U  ""  M x  M   Ad FILEDXC X x  June2,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,@AZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP PdVVVV'dxd d U!   _XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T77+dXXd7   h r )<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxPX  rt )>.*jx)N` `@EI*` 8ttxPb t@ DINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @)DATNASHVILLE (hԈ Dh MITCHELLL.DARNALL,0  0%%) (%%  `     h     ) ` Plaintiff/Appellant,0  0%%)0T %%  `     h     )0 p WilliamsonCircuitFj p%p% VS.0 ` 0 ` %` %0 % %0h%%0h%h%0%%)0p%%No.I95381\ p%p%  `     h     )0 p r p%p% A+HOMECARE,INC.and0  0%%)0p%%AppealNo. p%p% JAMESBRADLEYSMITH,0  0%%)0p%%01A019807CV00347 p%p%  `     h     )0 p p%p%  ` Defendants/Appellees.0  0%%)%% h(@tt&D CONCURRINGOPINION (hԈ  0 77+dd7   ` ThecourthascorrectlyaffirmedthesummaryjudgmentdismissingMr.DarnallsTenn.CodeAnn.501304(Supp.1998)claim.EventhoughIconcurwiththecourtsdecision,IhavepreparedthisseparateopiniontostatemyunderstandingoftheelementsofaTenn.CodeAnn.501304claim.IfindthisrestatementnecessarybecauseoftheWesternSectionsrelianceonJohnsonv.St. $ FrancisHosp.,Inc.,759S.W.2d925(Tenn.Ct.App.1988)inMerrymanv.Central P&t  ParkingSys.,Inc.,No.01A019203CH00076,1992WL330404(Tenn.Ct.App. '"" Nov.13,1992)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). ` PriortotheenactmentofTenn.CodeAnn.501304,theTennesseeSupremeCourtrecognizedalimitedexceptiontothe employmentatwilldoctrineforcertaintypesofretaliatorydischarges.SeeChismv.MidSouthMillingCo.,762S.W.2d552 0:*, (Tenn.1988);Clantonv.CainSloanCo.,677S.W.2d441(Tenn.1984).In1988,the 1+. WesternSectionpanelofthiscourtheldthattherewerefourelementstoacommonlawretaliatorydischargeclaimandthatthefourthelementwasthattheremustbe anexclusivecausalrelationshipbetweentheplaintiffsactionsandthedefendantsactions.Johnsonv.St.FrancisHosp.,Inc.,759S.W.2dat928. ;8_26  };5:  ` Severalyearslater,aMiddleSectionpanelofthiscourtquestionedwhethertheWesternSectionsformulationofthefourthelementoftheretaliatorydischargecauseofactionwasconsistentwiththe"substantialfactor"formulationinChismv.Mid  B SouthMillingCo.SeeAndersonv.StandardRegisterCo.,No.01A019102CV   00035,1992WL63421,at*56(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.1,1992),perm.app.granted `  (Tenn.June29,1992).Whenitreviewedthecase,theTennesseeSupremeCourtrevisitedtheelementsofretaliatorydischargeclaimsinvolvingemployeeswhohadbeendischargedafterseekingworkerscompensationbenefits.TheCourtadheredtothe"substantialfactor"formulationinChismv.MidSouthMillingCo.andheld   thatthefourthelementwasthat theclaimforworkerscompensationbenefitswasasubstantialfactorintheemployersmotivationtoterminatetheemployeesemployment.Andersonv.StandardRegisterCo.,857S.W.2d555,558(Tenn.  1993). ` TheTennesseeSupremeCourts substantialfactorformulationwasmorefavorabletoemployeesthantheWesternSections exclusivecausalrelationshipformulation.Thus,thelegaleffectofAndersonv.StandardRegisterCo.wasto   reversetheformulationofthefourthelementofcommonlawretaliatorydischargecausesofactioninJohnsonv.St.FrancisHosp.,Inc.andtoreplaceitwiththe .#R$  substantialfactorformulationinAndersonv.StandardRegisterCo.forall $& recognizedcommonlawretaliatorydischargecausesofaction. ` EvenastheTennesseeSupremeCourtrecognizedacommonlawcauseofactionforretaliatorydischarge,itexpressedreluctanceaboutestablishingTennesseespublicpolicyinthisarea.SeeWatsonv.ClevelandChairCo.,789 ,'0 S.W.2d538,544(Tenn.1989).TheTennesseeGeneralAssemblyrespondedbyenactingthePublicProtectionActof1990  #  1      ׀whichcodifiedthecauseofactionfor 60Z*4 retaliatorydischarge.TheGeneralAssemblydidnotexplicitlyspellouttheelementsofthenewstatutorycauseofactioninTenn.CodeAnn.501304.Whilethelegislativehistoryindicatesthatthestatuteembodiesthefirstthreejudicially 5=/: formulatedelementsofthecauseofaction,thelanguageofthestatuteindicatesthattheGeneralAssemblydepartedfromthefourthelementthe substantialfactorelementoriginallyadoptedinChismv.MidSouthMillingCo. $ H  ` Tenn.CodeAnn.501304(a)statesthat [n]oemployeeshallbedischargedorterminatedsolelyforrefusingtoparticipatein,orforrefusingtoremainsilentabout,illegalactivities.TheGeneralAssemblyschoiceoftheterm solelymeansthatanemployeecanprevailwithaTenn.CodeAnn.501304claimonlyifheorshecanprovethathisorherrefusaltoparticipateinortoremainsilentaboutillegalactivitieswastheonlyreasonforthetermination.Iftheemployercanarticulateanyotherreasonforthetermination,theemployeesclaimwillfail.Thus,thestatutorystandardinTenn.CodeAnn.501304ismoredeferentialtotheemployerthanthe substantialfactorstandardadoptedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourtinChismv.  MidSouthMillingCo.andAndersonv.StandardRegisterCo. 0T  ` OnthiscourtsfirstoccasiontodiscusstheelementsofacauseofactionunderTenn.CodeAnn.501304,aWesternSectionpanelheldthatthefourelementsofaclaimunderTenn.CodeAnn.501304werethesameasthefourelementsthathadbeenadoptedinJohnsonv.St.FrancisHosp.,Inc.Thus,thepanelstatedthatthe d#$ fourthelementofaTenn.CodeAnn.501304claimwasthattheremustbe anexclusivecausalrelationshipbetweentheplaintiffsrefusaltoparticipateinortoremainsilentaboutillegalactivitiesandtheemployersterminationoftheemployee.SeeMerrymanv.CentralParkingSys.,Inc.,1992WL330404,at*6. )$,  ` TheWesternSectionsreturntoits exclusivecausalrelationshipformulationforthefourthelementofclaimsunderTenn.CodeAnn.501304isanunwarranteddeparturefromthestatutorytext.Becausewemustenforceplainandunambiguousstatutorylanguageaswritten,seeHawksv.CityofWestmoreland,960S.W.2d10,16 (2L,6 (Tenn.1997),IwouldholdthatthefourthelementofaTenn.CodeAnn.501304claimisthattheemployeewasdischargedsolelyforrefusingtoparticipateinortoremainsilentaboutillegalactivities.Thus,asIunderstandthem,thefourelementsofacauseofactionunderTenn.CodeAnn.501304areasfollows: 82> Ї8 ` (1)8 ` (#` (#theplaintiffmustbeanemployeeofthedefendant;   ` (2)8 theplaintiffmusthaverefusedtoparticipateinorto  0 remainsilentaboutillegalactivitiesattributabletothedefendant;    ` (3)8 thedefendantmusthavedischargedtheplaintiff;andl    ` (4)8 thedefendantmusthavedischargedtheplaintiffsolelyfor  theplaintiffsrefusaltoparticipateinortoremainsilentaboutillegalactivitiesattributabletothedefendant.    ` OnemightarguethatMerrymans exclusivecausalrelationshipformulation   isthefunctionalequivalentofthelanguageofTenn.CodeAnn.501304(a).However,adoptingtheexactlanguageofthestatuteismorefaithfultothestatutorytext.Itwillalsoavoidfuturepointlesslitigationoverwhetherthereisadifferencebetweenestablishingthatanemployeewasdischarged solelyforrefusingtoparticipatein,orforrefusingtoremainsilentabout,illegalactivityandthatthereisanexclusivecausalrelationshipbetweentheemployeesdischargeandhisorherrefusaltoparticipateinorremainsilentaboutillegalactivities. ` Apartymayobtainasummaryjudgmentbyaffirmativelydemonstratingthatthenonmovingpartywillbeunabletoproveanessentialelementofitscase.See d#  Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,213(Tenn.1993);Brennerv.TextronAerostructures, %," 874S.W.2d579,484584(Tenn.Ct.App.1993);.Inthiscase,A+Homecare,inc.Inc.haspresetnedpresentedevidenceconcerningMr.Darnall'sconduct,otherthanhisdiscussionwiththeoutsideauditors,thatwouldwarranthistermination.Accordingly,A+HomecarehasdemonstratedthatMr.Darnallwillbeunabletoproveanessentialemenmentlementofhiscasethathewasterminatedsolelybecausehediscussedthecompany'sfinancialtransactionswiththeoutsideauditors.ha `     h     ____________________________ `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE