ÿWPC  ¦gOœ;‚µ«ÝâO½ßks(à+¼ï 3IïÞm•‹JÏXÜe3 ˆ€´E¤]å×Ë¡Š/§†­= yM¸Ó>ٳݼ{š\ÙäYÏdØqB©$µÃq¿Þ¼ÊâÉÿ ×Ñ2 ¬Ø.:ŸÞM:-q\7ÏAòE‰¯ýC ŽÌJ§•rh ^k ªëá¸"¢®y´\Gxˆ9œÐùòúŒZæÆ ;ÓR‘7Ç9×,¾9$ÕÓÉ£§ÃÛ°±#Üðǘ^Ü øî0s—:í±¨û*ùð„˜Ïk,Žqn(:™‰ìØz´ÎÉ®‡3Ókj~DZ­(“,wt#‡HjaYm¨&bû†‹ô“ %§I]†yP£êþÛHßèäÖáߊ%kæüWqìF iÈ~º¦_ÑD„¶rªŽT½ÀÖ¶q±8mèK£ªÊ$JEo0­(×PðF‚Ž<“±û‹BcââуâÝoï2ºwÖ“–P_¾›í¹‡¿ÿ>&ÓÌšDGò¦|epÿË“¹ÃÕ‚+°Ž[D@!c]âI!Ç ÝJU8ËÑQ|5#;FÃ@ m_´ÿ_* :}x7DŸËšê;Á‰‚(•íò@ï&­ÚR*# LU:W %‘ 0(—b ¿w@Ë4 n­.ÛãU:ääääääääääääääääääää AQÆo 0D5 0Dy 0D½ ½ D/ B0 BM D3j ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - ;<D=D>D?U@ADBCÓ€MF&3|xM«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@ ÷Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XÐXXXÔÔ€ DlX XÐÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XÐX DlÔÐ  ÐÌMay€25,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñCñ›ñCñѰÑÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÐXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€¼–¼XXÔÓ  ÓñMññCñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô ` 8ttxP,ð  rßñCññMññMññMññMññCñ›ñCññMññMñ›ñMñà@  êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌñMñœßt€ )>.*jxQ` `€€@EE.` 8ttxP}ð  tß›ñMñà@¦¦(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€XÐX¼¼–ԈР ÐÌÌÌÌBILL€MASON€andà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð È À ÐJOHN€McKNIGHT,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ® ¦ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à 8 àà  à)Ð zr  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð `X  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9806„CH„00283Ð F>  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ,$  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àDavidson€ChanceryÐ   Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€92„3614„IIÐ øð  ÐMETROPOLITAN€DEVELOPMENTà  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ ÞÖ  ÐAND€HOUSING€AGENCY,€et€al.,à 8 àà  à)Рļ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à 8 àà  à)Ð ˆ ÐÌÌà@U U êàAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYˆÌà@#êàAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@N N êàTHE€HONORABLE€CAROL€L.€McCOY,€CHANCELLORˆÌÌÌÌDAVID€L.€COOPERÌCOLUMBA€A.€MCHALEÌ1000€Northchase€Drive,€Suite€110ÌP.€O.€œBox›€749ÌGoodlettsville,€Tennessee€37070„0749Ìà Ø àAttorneys€for€Plaintiffs/AppellantsÌÌGEORGE€E.€BARRETTÌ217€Second€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Defendants/AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌÌà@¤¤$êàAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDˆÌÌÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌCAIN,€J.ÌCOTTRELL,€J.ÌÌÓÓò òÔ€„l„XXÐÔòòà@tt(êàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€XÐX„„lԈР€;x4:9 Їà Ø àà 0 àTwo€employees€of€the€Metropolitan€Housing€and€Development€AgencyÏ(MDHA)€brought€suit€against€their€supervisor,€the€agency,€and€the€agencyððs€director,Ïclaiming€that€the€supervisor€had€discriminated€against€them€in€violation€of€federal€andÏstate€laws.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€claims.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ÃÃ&êàò òI.€€The€Complaintó óˆÐ ü  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àBill€Mason€and€John€McKnight,€both€African„Americans,€€were€veteranÏemployees€in€the€paint€department€of€MDHA,€with€over€forty€years€of€experienceÏbetween€them.€€After€William€Hickey€became€director€of€operations€for€the€agency,€Mr.ÏMason€was€demoted€from€paint€supervisor€to€paint€leader,€though€he€was€notÏreprimanded€and€not€subjected€to€any€disciplinary€proceeding.€€His€supervisory€dutiesÏwere€reduced€so€that€he€eventually€wound€up€supervising€only€one€man,€Mr.ÏMcKnight.Ìà Ø àÌà Ø àà 0 àJohn€McKnight€had€previously€worked€with€individuals€of€all€races€atÏdifferent€MDHA€facilities.€€Under€Mr.€Hickey,€he€was€put€on€permanent€station€at€VineÏHill€Homes,€where€he€was€assigned€to€a€crew€made€up€of€himself,€Mr.€Mason,€andÏone€other€African„American€painter.€€Later,€he€and€Mr.€Mason€were€transferred€to€theÏœHadley›€Park€Towers.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àIn€November€of€1991,€Mr.€Mason€applied€for€a€supervisory€position.€€TheÏagency€appointed€a€younger€man€to€that€position,€a€white€male€named€Ed€œCothran›,Ïwho€had€less€seniority€at€MDHA€than€Mr.€Mason,€and€less€supervisory€experience.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Masonððs€duties€included€evaluating€Mr.€McKnightððs€performance.€ÏIn€February€of€1992,€Mr.€Mason€prepared€an€evaluation€that€rated€Mr.€McKnightððsÏperformance€as€ð ðabove€standard.ðð€Mr.€Hickey€objected€to€the€rating,€and€prevailedÏupon€Mr.€Mason€to€lower€it€to€ð ðstandard.ðð€Mr.€Hickey€declined€to€sign€the€evaluation.Ð d9\28 ЀÌà Ø àà 0 àOn€December€12,€1992,€the€plaintiffs€filed€suit,€claiming€that€Mr.€HickeyððsÏactions€were€part€of€a€larger€pattern€of€racial€discrimination€at€MDHA,€undertaken€withÏthe€ð ðdemonstrated€intention€to€make€the€painter€position€at€MDHA€a€predominatelyÏððwhiteðð€job.ðð€Mr.€Mason€also€claimed€that€the€failure€to€promote€him€amounted€to€ageÏdiscrimination.€€The€plaintiffs€asked€for€actual€damages,€and€for€punitive€andÏcompensatory€damages€of€$250,000,€pursuant€œto€Title›€VII€of€the€Civil€Rights€Act€ofÏ1964,€and€to€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ4„21„101,›€et€seq.€ÏThey€later€dropped€their€claims€under€federal€law,€and€agreed€to€make€the€TennesseeÏHuman€Rights€Act€the€sole€basis€of€their€action.€€ÌÌà@ÇÇêàò òII.€€Proceedings€in€the€Trial€CourtˆÐ (#  Ðó óÌà Ø àà 0 àAfter€the€complaint€was€filed,€the€lawsuit€progressed€at€a€snailððs€pace.€ÏIt€was€dismissed€once€for€lack€of€prosecution,€and€subsequently€reinstated,€before€itÏwas€finally€dismissed€on€summary€judgment€on€October€22,€1996.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMost€of€the€delay€can€be€attributed€to€Mr.€Drummond,€the€plaintiffsððÏattorney.€€He€drafted€and€filed€numerous€motions€(including€four€to€be€allowed€toÏwithdraw€as€the€attorney€of€record)€but€they€were€frequently€ineffectual,€eitherÏbecause€he€filed€his€motions€in€an€untimely€way,€failed€to€schedule€hearings€on€theÏmotions,€failed€to€file€supporting€documents€to€support€the€motions,€or€failed€to€serveÏopposing€counsel.€€Disputes€over€discovery€also€hampered€progress€on€this€case.€ÏThe€following€account€is€a€bare€outline€of€those€proceedings€which€moved€the€caseÐ ¨9 26 Ðforward.€€It€omits€most€of€the€filings€and€maneuvers€which€ultimately€served€only€toÏdelay€the€final€resolution.€€€€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMDHA€responded€to€the€complaint€on€May€13,€1993.€€The€agencyÏclaimed€that€the€plaintiffsðð€allegations€as€to€the€defendantsðð€intentions€or€motivesÏamounted€to€conjecture€and€supposition,€and€did€not€state€facts€to€which€anÏappropriate€response€could€be€made.€€They€also€advanced€two€affirmative€defenses:Ïthat€the€plaintiffs€had€failed€to€exhaust€their€administrative€remedies,€because€theyÏhad€failed€to€file€grievances€in€accordance€with€the€procedures€outlined€in€theÏAffirmative€Action€Plan€for€MDHA;€and€that€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€for€filingÏa€claim€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„101€had€passed€before€they€filed.€€€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àOn€July€17,€1994,€the€defendants€filed€a€œmotion›€for€œjudgment›€on€theÏœpleadings›€under€œTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€Rule€12.03.€€€›A€hearing€on€the€œmotion›€wasÏscheduled€for€September€16,€1994.€€At€4:14€P.M.,€on€the€day€before€the€scheduledÏhearing,€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€œmotion›€to€amend€their€complaint,€and€for€the€court€toÏdefer€its€ruling€on€the€defendantsðð€motion€until€after€amendment€of€the€complaint.€€AÏcopy€of€the€amended€complaint€was€not€attached€to€the€motion.Ì€€€€€Ìà Ø àà 0 àThe€trial€court€declined€to€defer€its€hearing.€€It€found€the€defendantsððÏmotion€for€judgment€on€the€pleadings€to€be€well„taken,€and€dismissed€all€of€theÏplaintiffsðð€claims€as€time„barred,€except€for€Mr.€McKnightððs€claim€relating€to€theÏlowering€of€his€evaluation€in€1992.€€Shortly€thereafter€plaintiffs€filed€a€œmotion›€to€œalter›Ïor€œamend›€the€œjudgment,›€which€stated,€ð ð[œp]rior›€to€the€hearing€of€this€motion,€plaintiffsÏwill€submit€a€copy€of€the€proposed€amended€complaint.ðð€A€proposed€amendedÏcomplaint€was€filed€on€December€7,€1994.€€Ìâ âÐ È7À04 Ðà Ø àà 0 àHowever,€Mr.€Drummond€did€not€schedule€a€hearing€on€the€plaintiffsððÏâ âmotion€until€April€of€1996.€€Following€that€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€œmotions›Ïto€alter€and€amend€the€judgment,€for€additional€findings€of€fact,€and€to€amend€theÏcomplaint,€because€of€undue€delay€and€futility.€€The€court€found€that€the€proposedÏamended€complaint€lacked€specificity,€and€did€not€allege€conduct€by€the€defendantsÏoccurring€within€the€limitations€period.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àOn€May€13,€1996,€the€defendants€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€JudgmentÏon€the€remaining€claim€of€Mr.€McKnight.€€After€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€grantedÏsummary€judgment€to€œthe›€defendants,€and€it€dismissed€the€action€on€July€11,€1996.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€plaintiffs€subsequently€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€theÏjudgment,€and€the€defendants€moved€the€court€to€impose€Rule€11€sanctions€upon€Mr.ÏDrummond€for€rule€violations.€€€A€hearing€was€held€on€both€motions,€and€on€OctoberÏ22,€1996,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€plaintiffsðð€motion€to€alter€or€amend,€and€imposedÏsanctions€of€$2,000€in€attorney€fees€upon€Mr.€Drummond€for€rule€violations€during€theÏcourse€of€litigation.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Drummond€filed€a€œnotice›€of€œappeal›€from€the€order€of€sanctions.€€HeÏfailed€to€file€a€brief,€despite€being€granted€an€extension€of€time,€and€we€accordinglyÏdismissed€that€appeal.€€Mr.€Mason€and€Mr.€McKnight€filed€pro„œse›€notices€of€appealÏfrom€the€dismissal€of€their€claims.€€They€subsequently€engaged€another€attorney€toÏargue€their€case.Ì€€Ìà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellees€have€raised€an€issue€as€to€whether€this€court€can€evenÏconsider€this€present€appeal,€arguing€that€the€œnotices›€of€œappeal›€were€not€timely€filed.€Ïâ âWithout€getting€into€too€much€detail,€we€find€that€the€plaintiffsðð€œmotion›€to€œalter›€orÐ È7À04 Мamend,›€while€defective€in€some€respects,€was€timely,€and€that€it€thus€served€to€toll€theÏtime€limit€for€filing€a€œnotice›€of€œappeal,›€rendering€that€notice€timely€as€well.Ìâ âÌà@Œ Œ êàò òIII.€€The€Motion€to€Amend€and€the€Judgment€on€the€Pleadingsó óˆÐ ¨   ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àAppellants€argue€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€renderingÏa€judgment€on€the€pleadings€without€first€considering€the€motion€to€amend€theÏcomplaint.€€However,€in€view€of€the€fact€that€their€late„filed€motion€was€notÏaccompanied€by€the€proposed€amended€complaint,€and€that€they€failed€to€scheduleÏa€hearing€on€the€motion,€we€can€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtððs€action.€ÏIf€we€found€that€such€a€tardy€and€insubstantial€effort€barred€the€court€from€proceedingÏwith€its€previously€scheduled€hearing,€we€would€be€placing€a€tool€for€delay€in€theÏhands€of€those€who€wish€to€hinder€the€work€of€the€court€solely€for€their€ownÏadvantage.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà Ø àà 0 àTurning€to€the€judgment€itself,€we€must€first€note€that€in€ruling€on€a€RuleÏ12.03€œmotion,›€the€trial€court€must€take€as€true€all€the€facts€alleged€in€the€complaint,Ïand€determine€whether€those€facts€state€a€cause€of€action€that€should€be€decided€byÏa€jury.€€òòGray€v.€McDonaldððs€Corporationóó,€874€S.W.2d€44€(œTenn.€›App.€1993).€€Ð È(À!$ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€statute€of€limitations€for€filing€complaints€under€the€TennesseeÏHuman€Rights€Act€is€one€year.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„311(d).€€The€originalÏcomplaint€only€cited€actions€by€œMr.€Hickey›€that€occurred€more€than€one€year€beforeÏthe€complaint€was€filed,€with€the€exception€of€his€role€in€getting€Mr.€Mason€to€lower€theÏevaluation€of€Mr.€McKnight.€€Thus,€assuming€the€truth€of€all€the€allegations€of€factÏstated€by€the€plaintiffs,€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€granting€judgment€to€theÏdefendants€on€all€issues€except€for€the€evaluation.€€ÌÐ ¨9 26 Ðà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellants€argue,€however,€that€the€trial€court€erred,€because€underÏthe€continuing€violation€doctrine,€it€could€consider€all€of€the€alleged€discriminatory€acts,Ïwithout€regard€to€the€statute€of€limitations.€€That€doctrine€was€first€developed€by€theÏfederal€courts€in€their€interpretation€of€federal€anti„discrimination€legislation,€and€wasÏsubsequently€adopted€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€inòò€œSpicer›€v.€œBeaman›€BottlingÐ ˆ€ ÐCoóó.,€937€S.W.2d€884€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€gist€of€the€doctrine€is€that€a€plaintiff€mayÐ h`  Ðchallenge€ð ðan€ongoing,€continuous€series€of€discriminatory€acts,€as€long€as€one€ofÏthose€discriminatory€acts€falls€within€the€limitations€period.ðð€937€S.W.2d€at€886.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àHowever,€the€Court€also€stated€in€the€òòœSpicer›óó€case€that€there€are€only€twoÐ èà Ðcircumstances€in€which€the€continuing€violation€doctrine€applies.€€937€S.W.2d€at€889.€ÏThe€first€is€when€ð ðthere€is€some€evidence€of€present€discriminatory€activity€giving€riseÏto€a€claim€of€a€continuing€violation.ðð€The€second€is€when€ð ðthere€has€been€a€long„¼standing€and€demonstrable€policy€of€discrimination.ðð€€In€order€to€make€a€claim€underÏthis€second€circumstance,€ð ðThe€plaintiff€must€clearly€demonstrate€some€ððoverarchingÏpolicy€of€discrimination,ðð€and€not€merely€the€occurrence€of€an€isolated€incident€ofÏdiscriminatory€conduct.ððÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€complaint€contains€no€evidence€to€indicate€that€the€supervisor€isÏcontinuing€to€subject€the€plaintiffs€to€adverse€personnel€actions.€€In€fact,€there€are€noÏindications€in€the€record€that€Mr.€Hickey€is€still€employed€by€MDHA.€€Further,€althoughÏthe€complaint€does€speak€of€a€pattern€of€discrimination,€and€alleges€that€Mr.€HickeyÏwas€determined€not€to€hire€or€promote€black€supervisors,€there€are€no€facts€allegedÏas€to€any€specific€qualified€supervisory€candidates€being€denied€employment€orÏpromotion€on€the€basis€of€race,€with€the€exception€of€Mr.€Mason.€€Thus,€the€plaintiffÏhas€failed€to€clearly€demonstrate€an€overarching€pattern€of€discrimination€such€asÏwould€require€the€application€of€the€continuing€violation€doctrine.ÌÐ ¨9 26 Ðà@tt$êàò òIV.€€Summary€Judgmentó óˆÐ  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€sole€remaining€claim€in€this€case€was€stated€in€Paragraph€14€of€theÏœplaintiffsð𛀜complaint›€as€follows:ÌÒ0 €ÒÒ°„ÒÒ°ÒÓÓ14.à ˆ àòòDiscriminatory€Evaluation€of€black€workersóóÐ ˆ€ ÐÌà ˆ à14.1à à àMDHA€has€instituted€a€policy€and€practice€ofÐ h`  Ðgiving€black€workers€generally€lower€evaluations€than€thoseÏgiven€white€workers.€€Specifically,€in€or€around€February€ofÏ1992,€Hickey,€acting€in€concert€with€œCothran›€and€Wright,Ïsought€to€influence€Mason€to€re„do€his€evaluation€ofÏMcKnight€in€such€a€way€as€to€lower€the€overall€rating.€ÏAgainst€his€own€judgment€and€preference,€Mason€agreedÏfinally€to€lower€the€evaluation€ratings€in€specific€areas€so€asÏto€lower€the€overall€rating€on€McKnight.€€ÌÌà ˆ à14.2à à àEven€with€the€lower€evaluation€of€McKnightÐ ÈÀ Ðrequested€by€œCothran›€of€Mason,€Hickey€refused€to€signÏMcKnightððs€evaluation.€€Hickeyððs€refusal€to€sign€McKnightððsÏevaluation€constitutes€a€deliberate€and€malicious€act€ofÏdiscrimination€in€that€McKnight€will€not€be€eligible€for€raisesÏand€other€benefits€of€employment,€including€consideration€forÏpromotion€because€of€Hickeyððs€refusal€to€endorse€theÏevaluation.ÌÒ°¬9ÒÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„°ÒÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àSummary€judgment€should€be€granted€when€there€is€no€genuine€disputeÏas€to€any€material€fact,€and€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€ÏœTenn.€R.€Civ.€›P.€Rule€56.03.€€When€a€properly„supported€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€is€filed,€the€non„moving€party€may€not€rest€upon€the€mere€allegations€orÏdenials€of€its€pleading,€but€must€respond€by€setting€forth€specific€facts€to€show€thatÏthere€is€a€genuine€issue€for€trial.€€Such€facts€may€be€established€through€swornÏaffidavits,€which€must€be€based€upon€personal€knowledge.€€œTenn.€R.€Civ.€›P.€RuleÏ56.05.€€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€have€examined€the€œdefendantsð𛀜motion›€for€œsummary›€œjudgment,›€theÏœplaintiffsð𛀜response,›€the€œdefendantððs›€œreply›€to€that€œresponse,›€the€œproposed›€œamended›Ïœcomplaint,›€and€the€œaffidavit›€of€Mr.€McKnight.€€There€is€no€dispute€that€Mr.€HickeyÐ ¸8°15 Ðrefused€to€sign€Mr.€McKnightððs€evaluation,€but€the€plaintiff€has€offered€no€evidence,Ïeither€direct€or€indirect,€to€support€Mr.€McKnightððs€allegations€that€black€workers€wereÏgenerally€œgiven›€lower€evaluations€than€white€ones.€€There€is€also€no€evidence€in€theÏrecord€that€Mr.€McKnight€had€been€denied€any€pay€raises€that€he€was€entitled€to,€orÏthat€he€had€applied€for€any€promotions.€€There€is€evidence,€however,€that€because€ofÏa€back€injury,€Mr.€McKnight€missed€a€total€of€39€days€of€work€during€the€evaluationÏperiod.€€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àJudging€from€the€following€excerpts€from€Mr.€McKnightððs€œaffidavit,›€itÏappears€that€the€supervisorsððs€actions€against€him€were€based€upon€personalÏanimosity:ÌÒ0 €ÒÒ°„ÒÒ°ÒÓÓ4.à ˆ àIn€October€of€1990,€after€œñ=ññ9ñ€ñ9ññ=ñMr.›€œñ<ññ:ñ€ñ:ññ<ñHickey›€had€taken€œoverñ>ñ›€›ñ>ññ9ñ›ñ9ññ>ñ.€.€.ñ>ññ?ñÐ ¨  Ð.€.€.ñ?ñ€ñ8ññ7ñIñ7ññ8ññ;ñ€ñ;ññ8ñIñ8ñ€said›€something€in€a€meeting€which€apparently€offendedÏhim.€€[He]€told€me€later€that€if€the€Agency€were€a€privateÏcompany€and€if€he€had€his€way,€he€would€have€me€fired.€€ÏSpecifically,€he€referred€to€how€I€had€ððjerked€him€aroundðð€inÏthat€meeting,€and€said€he€would€have€me€fired€if€he€could.€€ItÏwas€after€that€I€noticed€a€distinct€change€in€the€way€I€wasÏtreated€in€the€workplace€at€MDHA.Ì.€.€.Ì6.à ˆ àAfter€the€negative€encounter€with€Mr.€Hickey,€I€didÐ $ Ðsomething€else€that€caused€Mr.€Hickey€to€target€me€forÏspecial€treatment.€€Specifically,€I€noticed€that€Mr.€HickeyÏbegan€to€treat€me€very€differently€after€I€participated€in€aÏgrievance€hearing€that€Mr.€Mason€had€initiated€against€Mr.ÏHickey.€€In€that€grievance€hearing,€I€testified€in€behalf€of€Mr.ÏMason.ÌÒ°ÔDÒÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„°ÒÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€McKnight€went€on€to€state€that€it€was€after€these€negativeÏencounters€that€Mr.€Hickey€assigned€him€to€the€all„black€crew€at€Vine€Hill€Homes,€andÏmanipulated€his€evaluation.€€He€claimed€that€Hickey€never€even€visited€the€workplaceÏat€Vine€Hill,€and€thus€had€no€basis€for€evaluating€his€work.€€The€plaintiff€also€statedÏthat€his€performance€evaluation€meant€a€lot€to€him,€and€that€he€was€insulted€andÏhumiliated€by€being€singled€out€for€such€unfair€treatment.€€€€ÌÐ ¸8°15 Ðà Ø àà 0 àIf€John€McKnightððs€allegations€are€true,€we€can€at€most€conclude€thatÏWilliam€Hickey€was€a€vindictive€and€incompetent€administrator.€€However,€œñ@ñMr.ÏMcKnightñ@ññAñheñAñ›€does€not€allege€any€adverse€consequences€related€to€his€work.€€Therefore,Ïhe€does€not€state€a€claim€under€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act.ÌÌ€€€à@‹‹-êàò òV.ó óˆÐ h`  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÏChancery€Court€of€Davidson€County,€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellants.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # à¼à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à_________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÌÐ  H0@), ÐÑ  ÑÔ€¼—Ò¼XX UÔò òà@êê.êàœñBñIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@™™(êàAT€NASHVILLEñBñó óñBñÔ€X UX¼¼—ÒԈР ÐÌÌÌÌBILL€MASON€andà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ô ì ÐJOHN€œMcKNIGHT›,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ä Ü Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à 8 àà  à)Рļ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð ´¬  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9806„CH„00283Ð ¤œ  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ”Œ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àDavidson€ChanceryÐ „|  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€92„3614„IIÐ tl  ÐMETROPOLITAN€DEVELOPMENTà  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ d\ ÐAND€HOUSING€AGENCY,€et€al.,à 8 àà  à)à è àAffirmed€andÐ TL Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àRemandedÐ D< Ðà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à 8 àà  à)Ð 4, ÐÌÔ€¼—Ò¼XX UÔò òòòà@uu'êàJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ   ÐÌÓÓÔ€X UX¼¼—ÒÔà Ø àà 0 àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÐ @8 ÐChancery€Court€of€Davidson€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel;€uponÏconsideration€whereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€in€the€decree€of€the€ChancellorÏthere€is€no€reversible€error.Ìà Ø àà 0 àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,€therefore,Ïordered€and€decreed€by€this€Court€that€the€decree€is€affirmed.€€The€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€the€enforcement€of€theÏdecree€and€for€the€collection€of€the€costs€accrued€below.Ìà Ø àà 0 àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€Bill€Mason€and€John€McKnight,€Ïfor€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à______________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à______________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à______________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEñBñ›