WPC@ 9# .UN9 % 0 cU<w@,4l 0 0@6v 0J~ 0T 0^ 0hz 0r 0|T 0 0V 1u 0d[ B AQ - 0D 0D7 0D{ D/ B D3 U>> B)| DC AM U*5S_:6pv~vmHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$XaBXXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman DD U!" Ӏ#Ӏ-._#Arrus 3|x0(W(3P$ cW!XOXXX   `   0  ("$    2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d!" $&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (#$  0  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd! /C << G<  9p`(Arial I !  #d#-      ""  11   YYY FILED1XMay20,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   z !#d#-       $       ݀Foramoreindepthdiscussionofthefactsofthiscase, seeForbesv.WilsonCountyEmergencyDist.911Bd. ,No.01S019702CH00026,1998WL166142(Tenn.Apr.13,1998). 0 !#d#-       $       ݀CounselforWilsonCountyalsoorallymovedforaremittiturfollowingthetrial,butthisrequestwasdenied. { !#d#-       $       ݀JudgeLillardwroteseparatelytodissenttothisaspectofthedecision. Forbes ,1996WL518073 at*47(Lillard,J.concurringinpartanddissentinginpart).  !#d#-       $       ݀Althoughtheverdictdidnotexpresslydelineatethat$100,000.00wasattributabletotheplaintiffshumiliationandembarrassmentinjuries,thiswasdeducedfromthefactthatexperttestimonydemonstratedthattheplaintiffwasowed$204,254.00forlostwagesandbenefits. Id. at*3.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . -      \RA'\7XXdd7    @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE  ________________________________________________ EDNAFORBES,  PlaintiffAppellee       Vs.       WilsonChanceryNo.9325       WILSONCOUNTYEMERGENCY  C.A.No.01A019602CH00089 COMMUNICATIONDISTRICT911 BOARDandW.J.MCCLUSKEY,  DefendantsAppellants___________________________________________________________________________@ FROMTHEWILSONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT@ THEHONORABLEC.K.SMITH,CHANCELLOR@ ONREMANDFROMTHESUPREMECOURT@ W.GaryBlackburn,Blackburn,Slobey,Freeman&Happell@ ofNashville,ForAppellants@ MargaretL.Behm,AnneC.Martin,DodsonParker&Behm@ ofNashville,ForAppellee @ REMANDEDTOTHETRIALCOURT @ Opinionfiled:!R02/A1-j|]` . `@R        W.FRANKCRAWFORD,        PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.CONCURS:ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGEHOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE ӛ Thiscase,remandedtothisCourtbytheSupremeCourt,involvesanactionbroughtpursuanttotheTennesseeOpenMeetingsActandtheTennesseehandicapdiscriminationstatute.PlaintiffEdnaForbes(Forbes)allegedthatDefendantWilsonCountyEmergencyCommunicationDistrict911BoardandDefendantW.J.McCluskeyviolatedthesestatutesbyconductingasecretmeetinginwhichtheydecidedtodemoteherbecauseofahandicap. 3   ׀Followingajurytrial,thetrialcourtenteredjudgmentonthejuryverdictswhichfoundviolationsofbothstatutes.Forbeswasawarded$65,975.00inbackpay,$38,675.00infrontpay,$250,000.00damagesforhumiliationandembarrassment,$50,000.00forpunitivedamages,plusreasonableattorneysfeesandlitigationcosts.ThetrialcourtdeniedthedefendantsMotionforaNewTrialand/ortoAlterandAmend. 4   ׀Thedefendantsappealed,presentingissuesofliabilityunderbothstatutesanddamages. InadecisionfiledSeptember13,1996,weheldthatthedefendantsviolatedtheOpenMeetingsAct,T.C.A.844101 etseq. (1993&Supp.1997). Forbesv.WilsonCountyEmergencyCommunicationDist.911 ,No.01A019602CH00089,1996WL518073(Tenn.App.Sept.13,1996).FindingthatthedefendantsadverseemploymentactionwasvoidinlightofitsviolationoftheOpenMeetingsAct,weheldthattherewasnodemotion,andplaintiffwasreinstatedtohersupervisorposition. Id. at*4.Therefore,weheldthatbecausetherewasnodemotion,plaintiffwasnotdiscriminatedagainst inthehiring,firing,andothertermsandconditionsofemploymentasprovidedforinT.C.A.850103(A)(1993). 5   ׀Therefore,wepretermittedconsiderationofthedamageawardsfordiscrimination. Id.  InanopinionfiledApril13,1998,theTennesseeSupremeCourtreversedourdecisiontotheextentthatweheldthatForbescouldnotrecoverforhandicapdiscrimination,andheldthat adiscriminatorydecisionmadeinviolationoftheOpenMeetingsActcanserveasthebasisforadiscriminationsuiteventhoughthedecisionislaterdeclaredvoidforviolatingtheOpenMeetingsAct. Forbesv.WilsonCountyEmergencyDist.911Bd. ,No.01S019702CH00026,1998WL166142,*2(Tenn.Apr.13,1998).Afteraddressingseveralissuespretermittedbyourholding,theSupremeCourtremandedthecasetothisCourttoconsiderthesoleissueofwhethertheawardof$250,000.00forhumiliationandembarrassmentwasexcessive. Id. at*4. Whenfactualdeterminationsmadebyajuryhavebeenapprovedbythetrialjudge,anappellatecourtmayonlysetasidethesefactualfindingsintheabsenceofanymaterialevidenceintherecordtosupporttheverdict. Jacksonv.Patton ,952S.W.2d404,405(Tenn.1997).Thus,anappellatecourtshouldbe moredeferentialtoatrialcourtthatapprovesajurysawardofdamagesasopposedtoatrialcourtthatmodifiesajurysdamageaward. Coffeyv.FayetteTubularProds. ,929S.W.2d326,331n.2(Tenn.1996)In Ellisv.WhiteFreightlinerCorp. ,603S.W.2d125(Tenn.1980),ourSupremeCourtsaid:8 8  Thetrialjudgesapprovalofajuryverdictinvokesthematerialevidencerulewithrespecttoallotherissuesoffactandweknowofnoreasonwhythatruleshouldnothavethesameeffectwhenthatapprovalincludestheamountoftheaward.Thatactionbythetrialjudgemeansthathehasaccreditedthetestimonyofthewitnessesontheissueofdamagesandhasevaluatedtheevidenceassupportingtheamountawarded.Nevertheless,whenthequestionofremittiturisraised,theCourtofAppealshasthedutytoreviewtheproofofdamagesandtheauthoritytoreduceanexcessiveaward.Butwhenthetrialjudgehasapprovedtheverdict,thereviewintheCourtofAppealsissubjecttotherulethatifthereisanymaterialevidencetosupporttheaward,itshouldnotbedisturbed. Id. at129; seealsoCoffey ,929S.W.2dat331n.2. Tennesseeshandicapdiscriminationstatute,T.C.A.850103,incorporatestherightsandprivilegesoftheTennesseeHumanRightsAct.Underthisact,aplaintiffmayrecoverdamagesfor humiliationandembarrassment.T.C.A.421306(a)(7)(Supp.1997).Wefirstnotethatunderthestatute,humiliationandembarrassmentisincludedasanelementofrecoverabledamages,andthejuryintheinstantcasewasspecificallyinstructedtoconsiderthiselementseparately.In McDowellv.ShoffnerIndus.ofTenn.,Inc. ,No.03A019301CH00030,1993WL262846(Tenn.App.July13,1993),thisCourtdiscussedtheawardofsuchemotionaldamagesundertheHumanRightsActwithregardtoadischargedemployee.8 8 Damagesforhumiliationandembarrassment,ifoccasionedbytheunlawfuldischarge,maybeawardedundertheHumanRightsAct.Theamountispeculiarlywithintheprovinceofthejurysubjecttotheruleofreasonableness,andnecessarilydependsonthearticulationofpersonalshameexperiencedbythedischargedplaintifftogetherwiththejury'sperceptionofhissensitivities. Id. at*4. Theproofintheinstantcasedemonstratedthatatthetimeofherdemotion,Forbeswasfiftynineyearsoldandrecoveringfromcancer.Forbestestifiedthatwhenshewasnotifiedbyletterthatshehadbeendemoted,sheexperienced acompletementalandemotionalbreakdown.Sheassertsthatshesufferedabriefrelapseandimmediatelyvisitedherphysician,whotemporarilyprescribedmedication.Forbestestifiedasfollows:8 8  WhenIreceivedthisletter[indicatingherdemotion],IcouldntIjustcouldntbelievewhatIhadreceived,afterworkingashardasIhadandthetypeofworkIhaddonefor911,andwhattheyhaddonetome.8 8  ItcausedmetoIcantexplainexactlywhatyourbodygoesthroughinasituationlikethis.Iimmediatelyhadtogotoadoctor.Iwenttothedoctoronoraboutthreedays.IwasundermedicationsoheavythatIdidnthardlyknowwhenIwashavingameal,andsometimesIdidntevenhaveameal.8 8  Iwasjustmoreorlessout.Icouldntbelieve.AndIguessmybodywasstillweakfromtheothersituationthatIhadhad.Thenallofthisontopofitreallydidcausealotofpain,alotofheartache,andIjustIveneverexperiencedasituationlikethisbefore. Forbestestifiedthatthedemotionadverselyaffectedherselfconfidenceandherabilitytomakedecisions.Inaddition,Forbesstatedthatshehaddifficultyminglingwithfriendsandothersinthecommunity,becauseshewasconcernedthattheywouldaskheraboutherjob.Forbestestified:8 8 IgottothepointthatIcouldntgotochurch.Icouldjustwalkinandwalkout.Iwouldatonetime,thefirsttimeIgotout,IrealizedthatIneededtoleavethehouse,andIwenttoKmart.AndwhenIwenttoKmart,Icouldntgetoutofcar[sic].Ihadtoturnaroundandcomebackhome.Itsstillaffectingmequiteabit.Forbesfurthertestifiedthatshesuffersfrominsomniaeverynightasaresultofherdemotion.ThistestimonywasreinforcedbytestimonyofForbessdaughter,CindyBrown,whoalsostatedthatForbes wouldhardlydressorgooutsideafterherdemotion.Brownalsotestified:8 8 Shejustwasntthesame.Youknow,shealwayslikedtocookandgooutandworkwithherflowersandthingslikethat.Andshejustsataroundjustlikerealτshejustdidntknowwhattothink,Ithink.OtherwitnessesemployedbyE911testifiedthattheywere shockedwhentheyheardthatForbeshadbeendemoted,buttheydidnotdescribeForbessreaction. Thedefendantscontendthatthejurysawardof$250,000.00forhumiliationandembarrassmentisexcessive,sinceForbesdidnotofferanyevidencefromapsychiatristorpsychologistregardingherallegedemotionalinjury.ThedefendantsassertthatForbesdidnotallegethatshewasprescribedanylongtermmedicationandthatshefailedtodemonstratethatherlifeactivitieswerecurtailedbeyondashortperiodoftime.Thus,thedefendantsclaimthattheverdictcanonlybeexplainedbythejuryssympathyandprejudice. Thedefendantscite Campbellv.RustEnggCo. ,No.905679,1991WL27423(6thCir.Mar.5,1991).In Campbell ,alaidoffemployeebroughtaclaimagainsthisemployerpursuanttotheAgeDiscriminationinEmploymentAct,29U.S.C.621 etseq., andtheTennesseeHumanRightsAct.Amongotherissues,thedefendantappealedthemagistratesfailuretoreducethejurysawardof$68,897.00fortheplaintiffsembarrassmentandhumiliationundertheHumanRightsAct.Althoughthedecisiondoesnotdiscussatlengththeplaintiffsemotionaldamagesasaresultofhislayoff,itmentionsthat [t]heevidenceusedtosupportthejurysawardisplaintiffstestimonythatthelayoffhurtmequiteabitandthathewasembarrassedwheneverhesawRustemployeeswithwhomhehadformerlyworked. Id. at*5.TheSixthCircuitnotedthat:8 8 Plaintiffsufferednoaggravatedinjuriesasaresultofhislayoff.Rather,theinjurieshesustainedweremerelythosenormallyassociatedwithlosingajob,i.e.,overalldisappointmentaboutnotbeingemployed. Id. at*6.Consequently,theCourtremandedthecasetothetrialcourtwithinstructionstoreducetheawardto$10,000.00. In Harrisv.DominionBankofMiddleTenn. ,No.01A019609CH00444,1997WL273953(Tenn.App.May23,1997),adischargedemployeebroughtsuitagainsthisformeremployerpursuanttotheHumanRightsAct,allegingthathewasdiscriminatedagainstbecauseofhisage.Thejuryenteredageneralverdictagainstthedefendantsandawardedtheplaintiff$304,254.00,whichattributed$100,000.00totheplaintiffshumiliationandembarrassmentinjuries. 6   ׀ Id. at*1,*3.Citing Campbell,supra, thedefendantsarguedthattheplaintiffwasrequiredto provemorethanthehumiliationandembarrassmenttypicallyassociatedwithlosingajob. Id. at*2.TheCourt,however,opinedthat weseenoindicationthatthelegislatureintendedtorestrictrecoveriesforhumiliationandembarrassmentbyrequiringcorroborationorbyrequiringahigherdegreeofproof. Id. Theonlytestimonyofferedbytheplaintiffin Harris regardinghishumiliationandembarrassmentinjurieswasasfollows:8 8 QuestionbyMr.Ray[counselforplaintiff]:NowafteryourterminationwhatwasyourstateofmindlikeMr.Harris[plaintiff]?Whatwasyourpsychologicalwellbeinglike?8 8 Answer:Well,probablyoneofthescariestpositionsIhaveeverbeeninbecauseIowedalotofmoneyonmydevelopmentinthesubdivision.Ididn'thaveanyincomeanditwasprettyhumiliatingtobetheagethatIwasandtosuddenlyfindoutyounolongerhaveajob.8 8 QuestionbyMr.Ray:Didyouhaveaproblemsleeping?8 8 Answer:Well,Ididn'thaveaproblemsleepingtothebestIremember,butIhadproblemsyouknow,it'salittleembarrassingtogetoutinpublicandpeoplethinkyou'restillatthebankandyou'renot.8 8 QuestionbyMr.Ray:Didyouhavetotellpeople,"I'vebeenterminated,Inolongerhaveajob"?8 8 Answer:That'strue.8 8 QuestionbyMr.Ray:Howdidthatmakeyoufeel?8 8 Answer:Itdon'tmakeyoufeelgood. Id. at*4.Findingthattheawardof$100,000fortheseinjurieswas clearlyexcessive,theCourtsuggestedaremittiturto$20,000. Id. Citing Campbell , supra ,theCourtstatedthattheplaintiff didnotsufferanyaggravatedinjuries;thediscomforthefeltwasthesameanyonewouldfeeloverlosingajob. Id.  Intheinstantcase,itisuncontrovertedthatForbesofferedproofdemonstratingthatshesufferedsomedamagesasaresultofherhumiliationandembarrassment.Asin Campbell and Harris ,Forbestestifiedthattheadverseemploymentactionemotionallyscarredher. SeeCampbell , supra ,at*5; Harris , supra ,at*4.Also,asinthesecases,Forbesclaimedthatshewassociallyembarrassedbytheadverseemploymentaction. Seeid. at*4; Campbell , supra ,at*5. Unlikethecircumstancesin Campbell and Harris ,Forbeswasmerelydemotedasopposedtoterminated.However,Forbes,whowasdiscriminatedagainstbasedondisabilityasopposedtoage,wasrecoveringfromcancerand,thus,wouldlikelybemorepronetoemotionalinjuriesduetoheruniquesensitivities. SeeMcDowell , supra , at*4.Unliketheplaintiffsintheaforementionedcases,Forbestestifiedthatshesufferedfromarelapseandwasprescribedmedicationasaresultofherdemotionandthatshesuffersfrominsomnia.Forbes,nevertheless,didnotprofferevidencethatshewasreceivinganylongtermtreatmentfromprofessionalsforherhumiliationandembarrassment,nordidshedescribemanyparticularinstancesofdiscomfort. AlthoughwebelievethatmaterialevidenceexistsbywhichthejurycouldconcludethatForbessufferedfromhumiliationandembarrassment,wefindthatnomaterialevidenceexiststosupportanawardof$250,000.00fortheseinjuries. Ellis ,603S.W.2dat129. Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,wesuggestaremittiturof$175,000.00forForbesshumiliationandembarrassmentdamages,andthejudgmentisreducedto$75,000.00.AsorderedbytheSupremeCourt,thecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessaryincludingdeterminationofanawardofattorneysfeesonappeal.Costsoftheappealareassessedagainstdefendants.Ӝ       _________________________________       W.FRANKCRAWFORD,       PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S. CONCUR:̜____________________________________ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE ____________________________________HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE