ÿWPC§ …# VU:a %› 0¸¡bY 4a u 0ü„ 0D€ Ä w@Ì D3 0J? 0T‰ 0^Ý 0h; 0r£ 0| 0†‘ 0 1u§U, 0dHU,¬U*ØB)DC+ AMn™»v~T BÒvÓï 0@ AOÆQ 0D D/[ BŠ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX( 7$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` ` ÑÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ- ù-©U!3|xˆ (¬(3T6$¤¤Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` °ÑÓÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó t Du v w Dx y z D{ | } Ó€****'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òAugustÏ20,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'` dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  Ý›Ñ p ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÿåXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òœÙ€€ÙßL€'(&;+'h|` à. `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌEASTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEÌó ó„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌMARY€KILGORE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€CHANCERYÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€Ï03A01„9604„CH„00117Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDONNY€R.€GARNER,€individually€and€à à)à àÌd/b/a€Donny€R.€Garner€Insurance€à à)ÌAgency€and€NATIONWIDEà àà à)ÌINSURANCE€COMPANY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAFFIRMEDÌà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)ÌÌò òòòÌóóó óÌÌCatherine€M.€White,€Chattanooga,€For€the€Appellant€ÌÌRichard€A.€Smith,€Chattanooga,€For€the€Appellee€ÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓ  Óó óóóINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÌòòò òÌÌóóÌÓÓÓ  Óó óà àThis€is€an€action€for€damages€for€sexualÏharassment€in€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Human€RightsÏAct,€T.C.A.€ðð€4„21„401,€òòet€seq.óó€€The€defendant€DonnyÍGarner€owns€a€small€œentrepeneurial›€insurance€agency.€€At€times€œmaterial,›€heÏemployed€three€persons.€€In€œ1988,›€he€contracted€with€Nationwide€to€sell€itsÏinsurance€products€exclusively;€the€contract€provided,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€Mr.€GarnerÏhad€ð ðthe€right€to€exercise€independent€judgment€as€to€time,€place€and€manner€ofÏsoliciting€insurance,€servicing€insurance€and€otherwise€carrying€out€the€terms€of€theÏAgreement.ðð€€He€worked€on€a€commission€basis€and€paid€his€own€expenses.Ìà àIn€May€1994,€Garner€employed€the€plaintiff€as€his€office€manager.€€SheÏalleges€that€within€weeks€he€began€to€harass€her€sexually€and,€upon€hearing€thatÏliability€could€be€fastened€on€him€for€such€conduct,€discharged€œher.›Ìà àGarnerððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€granted€because€he€employedÏÑ  Ñless€than€eight€persons;€Nationwideððs€motion€was€granted€because€it€was€neitherÏthe€employer€nor€principal€of€Garner.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€appeals€and€presents€for€review:ÌÓÓÌà0 àI.à àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€summary€judgment€ofÏDonny€R.€Garner,€Individually€and€d/b/a€Donny€R.€Garner€InsuranceÏAgency,€on€the€basis€that€Mary€Kilgore€was€his€direct€employee,€that€Mr.ÏGarner€employed€no€more€than€two€persons€beside€himself,€that€T.C.A.€ðð€4„21„401(1)€prohibits€discriminatory€practices€by€an€employer€because€of€sex,Ïand€that€for€the€purposes€of€the€THRA,€the€term€ð ðemployerðð€is€defined€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€4„21„102(4)€as€persons€employing€eight€or€more€persons€within€theÏstate.ÌÌà0 àII.à àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€andÏdismissing€both€the€defendants€(Garner€and€Nationwide€InsuranceÏCompany)€for€the€same€reasons€referenced€above€and€also€because€theÏCourt€apparently€failed€to€take€into€consideration€T.C.A.€ðð€4„21„301(1)€andÏ(2)€with€respect€to€a€person€or€persons€who€retaliate€or€discriminate€againstÏa€person€because€they€have€opposed€a€practice€declared€discriminatory€orÍaid€a€person€engaged€in€any€acts€or€practices€that€are€declaredÏdiscriminatory.ÌÌà0 àIII.à àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€the€claim€for€intentionalÏand/or€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress€against€both€the€defendants.ÌÓÓÌà àWe€note€at€the€outset€that€the€plaintiff,€according€to€her€brief,€ð ðbrought€suitÏagainst€defendant€Garner€not€as€an€individual,€but€within€his€òòagency€capacityóó€asÏòòagentóó€for€Nationwide€Insurance€Company.ððÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€4„21„401€provides:ÌÓÓÌà0 àò òà à4„21„401.€€Employer€practices€„„ó ó€(a)€It€is€a€discriminatory€practice€forÏan€employer€to:Ìà0 àà à(1)€€Fail€or€refuse€to€hire€or€discharge€any€person€or€otherwise€toÏdiscriminate€against€an€individual€with€respect€to€compensation,€terms,Ïconditions€or€privileges€of€employment€because€of€such€individualððs€race,Ïcreed,€color,€religion,€œsex,›€age€or€national€origin;€orÌà0 àà à(2)€€Limit,€segregate€or€classify€an€employee€or€applicants€forÏemployment€in€any€way€which€would€deprive€or€tend€to€deprive€an€individualÏof€employment€opportunities€or€otherwise€adversely€affect€the€status€of€anÏemployee,€because€of€race,€creed,€color,€religion,€sex,€age€or€national€origin.Ìà0 àà à(b)€€This€section€does€not€apply€to€the€employment€of€an€individual€byÏsuch€individualððs€parent,€spouse€or€child€or€to€employment€in€the€domesticÏservice€of€the€employer.ÌÓÓÌà àUnder€the€statutory€scheme,€liability€is€imposed€upon€an€employer€who€isÏdefined€as€any€person€employing€eight€or€more€persons€or€òòany€person€acting€as€anÏagent€of€an€employer,€directly€or€œindirectlyóó.€€T.C.A.€ðð€4„21„102(4).›Ìà àThus€it€is€that€the€plaintiffððs€case€is€entirely€hinged€upon€the€proposition€thatÏNationwide€was€her€joint„employer€and€thus€liable€because€Garner€was€the€agentÏof€Nationwide.€€As€we€read€her€brief,€the€appellant€concedes€that€òòGarner€may€beÍheld€liable€only€if€he€is€found€to€be€an€agent€of€Nationwideóó.€œ€(Brief›€of€Appellant,€p.€œ5)›€ÏIn€light€of€the€plain€language€of€T.C.A.€ðð€œ4„21„102(4),›€it€would€be€mere€paralogismÏto€insist€that€Garner€falls€into€the€definition€of€œan›€employer.Ìà àWe€agree€with€the€appellees€that€the€phrase€ð ðagent€of€an€employerðð€wasÏintended€to€identify€an€employer€and€to€impose€liability€upon€the€employer€whereÏits€agent,€such€as€a€supervisor,€officer€or€manager,€violates€the€protected€rights€ofÏan€employee.Ìà àThe€required€relationship€under€the€THRA€is€that€of€employer„employee€asÏtherein€defined,€and€the€concept€of€principal„agent€is€only€relevant€in€the€context€ofÏthe€employer„employee€relationship.Ìà àThe€evidence€is€clear€that€the€plaintiff€was€not€an€employee€of€Nationwide.€ÏShe€was€employed€by€Garner,€an€entrepreneur,€who€paid€her€salary€and€controlledÏher€work.€€The€plaintiff€concedes€that€Garner€was€not€an€employee€of€œNationwide,›Ïand€it€is€therefore€difficult€to€understand€how€the€plaintiff€could€be.€€As€we€read€herÏbrief,€the€evidence€relied€upon€as€establishing€the€relationship€of€joint„employer„employee€is€the€Nationwide€Drug€Policy€she€had€to€comply€with.€€We€do€notÏbelieve€the€contention€warrants€further€discussion.Ìà àShe€argues€that€since€Garner€was€the€agent€of€Nationwide,€she€was€henceÏa€œsub„agent,›€making€Nationwide€liable€to€her€under€agency€principles.€€We€thinkÏthis€argument€runs€counter€not€only€to€the€plain€letter€of€the€statute€but€to€its€spirit.€ÍThe€cases€cited€by€the€plaintiff€are€not€applicable€to€the€Tennessee€statute€or€to€theÏfacts€of€the€case€at€bar.Ìà àThe€retaliation€proscribed€by€the€THRA€is€òòper€seóó€applicable€when€theÏdefendant€has€engaged€in€a€practice€declared€to€be€discriminatory,€T.C.A.€ðð€4„21„301(1).€€In€the€absence€of€a€finding€that€Garner€and€Nationwide€were€employers€ofÏthe€plaintiff,€this€conduct€towards€her,€within€the€purview€of€the€Act,€is€not€aÏdiscriminatory€practice.€€The€action€for€retaliatory€discharge,€therefore,€fails.€€òòSeeÏRoberson€v.€University€of€Tenn.óó,€829€S.W.2d€149€(Tenn.€App.€1992).Ìà àThe€claim€for€damages€for€intentional€or€negligent€infliction€of€emotionalÏdistress€is€not€subject€to€Chancery€jurisdiction,€and€the€dismissal€of€these€claimsÏwithout€prejudice€was€proper.Ìà àJudgment€is€affirmed€with€costs€to€the€appellant.Ì€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDon€T.€McMurray,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌÌÌ