WPCZ  ;4J^ 0 (mw@ 0l 0DA 0J 0T 0^# 0h 0r[ 0Dc AQ 0D 0@UBB % 0|U@ eF 0G 0 1u] 0d B6 D3S D/ B U 6 B) DC1 AMt U*   fJv~ vzz!(3|x($ DDDDӀ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  (3$ !  (C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ("$    <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  `(ZapfCalligr BTTT2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d$$$$'dxd**' dxdP Pd<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd0C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#.  "  .  2 eee FILED2X 2"US ,   !  2X CecilCrowson,Jr.   2 eee AppellateCourtClerk   X !#d#.   $       ݀.ԀT.C.A.371106.  !#d#.   $       ݛ.1972PublicActs16761680,Ch.863(creatingalawandequitycourtϜ0 inDyerCounty,TN)readsinpart:   S Ҝ0 Section1.ThereisherebycreatedtheLawandEquityCourtforDyerCounty,Tennessee,thejurisdictionofwhichshallbecoextensivewithDyerCounty.̜0 Section2.TheLawandEquityCourtforDyerCountyshallhaveconcurrentjurisdictionwiththeChanceryCourtofDyerCountyandtheCircuitCourtofDyerCounty,andsaidCourtandtheJudgethereofshallbevestedwithallthecommonlawandstatutorypowersoftheChanceryCourts,andtheCircuitandLawCourts,andthejudgesthereof...̜0 Section11.TheJudgeoftheLawandEquityCourtofDyerCounty,TennesseeshallhaveandexerciseallprobatejurisdictionandalljuvenilejurisdictionofalljuvenilecasesarisingwithinDyerCounty,Tennessee,andtheCountyClerkofDyerCounty,TennesseeshallcontinuetomaintainallrecordsofjuvenileandprobatecaseswherewithinthespecialjurisdictionoftheCountyCourt.... \\RA'\  !#d#.   $       .T.C.A.421101(a)provides:0 0 Itisthepurposeandintentofthegeneralassemblybythischapterto(1)ProvideforexecutionwithinTennesseeofthepoliciesembodiedinthefederalCivilRightsactsof1964,1968and1972.... @ !#d#.   $       .LanierwasanelectedStateofficial,andtheCountycouldexerciseno0 controloverhisconduct.However,throughStateactiontheCourtOfTheJudiciaryhadjurisdictionoverLaniersconductasajudge,T.C.A.175101,etseq.,andtheSupremeCourtin1993establishedprocedurestodealwithsexualharrassmentinthejudicialdepartment.SeeAdministrativeDirectory935.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . .  ݛ       \RA'\\RA'\7+XXdd7ќR130A1-j|E" `@Rߛ ̀@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ WESTERNSECTIONATJACKSON@ _______________________________ SANDYSANDERS,    )DyerChanceryCourt      )No.93166 PlaintiffAppellant, )      )v.      )      ) DAVIDW.LANIER,INHIS   ) INDIVIDUALANDINHIS   ) OFFICIALCAPACITIES,AND  )C/ANO.02A019412CH00276 THESTATEOFTENNESSEE,   )      ) DefendantsAppellees. )______________________________________________________________FromtheChanceryCourtofDyerCountyatDyersburg, HonorableWilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudge,SittingbyDesignation. ̜ JerroldL.Becker and ScarlettA.Beaty ,LOCKRIDGE,BECKER&VALONE,P.C.,Knoxville,Tennessee,AttorneyforPlaintiffAppellant. CharlesW.Burson, AttorneyGeneralandReporter,and S.ElizabethMartin ,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,Nashville,Tennessee,ForAppellee,StateofTennessee.OPINIONFILED: REVERSEDANDREMANDED @ FRANKS,J.  CRAWFORD,P.J.(W.S.): (Concurs) FARMER,J.: (Concurs)̛̜  PlaintiffsactionfiledagainsttheStatepursuanttotheTennesseeHumanRightsAct(THRA),TennesseeCodeAnnotated420191,etseq.,wasdismissedbytheTrialJudgeforfailuretostateacauseofaction.T.R.C.P.Rule12.02(6).  PlaintiffallegedsheisemployedasaYouthServicesOfficerwiththeJuvenileCourtofDyerCounty,Tennessee.ThispositioniscompensatedbytheCounty 4   .SheallegedthatshewassexuallyharassedbyChancellorDavidLanier,aStatejudge,whopresidedoverbothChanceryandCountyJuvenileCourt 5   .Sheaversthatwhensherejectedhisadvances,theChancellordemotedher,andshebroughtthisactionallegingsexualdiscriminationinemployment.  TheTrialCourtdeterminedthattheStateofTennesseewasnotplaintiffs employer forthepurposesofTHRA.BeforetheTrialCourt,plaintiffreliedonSibleyMemorialHospitalv.Wilson,488F.2d1338(D.C.Cir.1973),andwhiletheTrialJudgereiteratedthatSibleyheldthattheActreachesbeyondthecontextofdirectemployment,heconcluded:0 0 InHillv.NewYorkCityBoardofEducation,808F.Supp.141(E.D.N.Y.1992)theplaintiff,ablackmale,employedbyanindependentcontractorasabusdriverwasdecertifiedbytheBoard,andlaterfiredbythecontractor.0 0 TheCourtgaveshortshrifttohisclaimthathewasanemployeeoftheBoard,saying... thisargumentignoresthefundamentalpredicateofTitleVIIliabilitytheexistenceofanemploymentrelationshipbetweentheonewhodiscriminatesagainstanotherandthatotherwhofindshimselfthevictimofdiscrimination. WithduedeferencetotheTrialJudge,theHillCourtsholdingisinaccordwithSibley,andemployedthesocalled economicrealities testsetforthinSpritv.TeachersInsuranceandAnnuitiesAssociation,691F.2d1054(2ndCir.1982),vacated463U.S.1223103S.Ct.3565,77L.Ed.2d1406(1983),onremand735F.2d23,2ndCir.Cert.denied469U.S.881,105S.Ct.247,83L.Ed.185(1984),tohold:0 0 UnderSprit,itisclearthattheBoardofEducationwasaTitleVIIemployerinthiscase.TheBoardhadtheexclusivepowertocertifyplaintifftodriveonBoardofEducationroutes,and,becauseAmboydidbusinessonlywiththeBoard,suchcertificationpowerwastatamounttoavetopowerbytheBoardoverplaintiffsemployment. Id.at148.  Acomplaintwillbedismissedforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybegranted,onlyifaftertakingtheallegationsofthecomplaintastrue,thereisnosetoffactsunderwhichplaintiffwouldbeentitledtorelief.Lewisv.Allen,698S.W.2d58(Tenn.1985);T.R.A.P.12.02(6).OurreviewoftheTrialJudgesactioninthiscaseisdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness,sincetheissueisaquestionoflaw.T.R.A.P.Rule13(d).  THRAstatesthatitisadiscriminatorypracticeforanemployerto:0 0 (1)Failorrefusetohireordischargeanypersonorotherwisetodiscriminateagainstanindividualwithrespecttocompensation,terms,conditionsorprivilegesofemploymentbecauseofsuchindividualsrace,creed,color,religion,sex,ageornationalorigin....T.C.A.421401(1).6  Employer isdefinedasincluding thestate,oranypoliticalorcivilsubdivisionthereof,andpersonsemployingeight(8)ormorepersonswithinthestate,oranypersonactingasanagentofanemployer,directlyorindirectly. T.C.A.421102(4).  OurcourtsinterpretTHRAinaccordancewithitsparallelfederalversion,TitleVII.Brucev.WesternAutoSupplyCo.,669S.W.2d95(Tenn.App.1984).Alsosee906F.Supp.441(E.D.Tenn.1995)(THRAandTitleVIIshouldbesimilarlyconstrued,sincebothhavethesamepurpose.) 7     FederalCourtshaveinterpretedTitleVIIsdefinitionof employer toreachbeyondtheentitieswhichliterallywriteanemployeespaycheck.SincetheActdidnotdefine employee ,theCourtshavelookedtotheNationalLaborRelationsActforguidanceinascertaininglegislativeintent.Arbrusterv.Quinn,711F.2d1332,1341(6thCir.1983).  The economicrealitiestest employedbyFederalCourtshasestablishedaflexiblestandardthattendstowardinclusionofabroadnumberofworkersundertheprotectionoftheAct.Seee.g.,Realv.DriscollStrawberryAssociation,Inc.,603F.2d748,(9thCir.1979),Lutherv.Z.Wilson,Inc.,528F.Supp.1166(S.D.Ohio1981).Theeconomicrealitiestestforemployeestatushasbeendevelopedbythecasesfocusingontheabilityofemployersandotherstocontrolaccesstoemploymentopportunities,thetermsandconditionsofemployment,andwhethertheallegedemployeeunderthecircumstancesissubjecttotheeffectsofunlawfuldiscrimination.  ThefirstcasetotakethisapproachwasSibley,wherethehospitalarguedthatbecausetherewasnoemploymentrelationshipbetweentheplaintiffandthehospital,theplaintiffhadnocauseofaction.TheCourt,however,focusedontheeconomicrealitiesoftherelationshipandconcludedthattheformalrelationshipbetweentheplaintiffandthehospitaldidnotcontrol,rathertheissuebeingwhetherthehospitalhadthepowertoaffecttheplaintiffsemployment.  TheCourtinArbruster,inadoptingtheeconomicrealitiestest,saidthatitwouldexaminewhethertheemployerwasinapositiontoaffecttheongoingworkingconditionsoftheemployee,andconcludedthatcongressintendedtoprotectallworkersfromdiscriminatorypractices,unlesssuchworkerswereexcludedbyspecificstatutoryexception.TheCourtsaid thatthetermemployeeinTitleVIImustbereadinlightofthemischieftobecorrected,andtheendtobeattained.322U.S.at124,64S.Ct.at857(citationsomitted). Themostimportantfactorinthistestistheemployersabilitytocontrolthejobperformanceandemploymentopportunitiesoftheplaintiff.Eyermanv.MaryKayCosmetics,967F.2d213,219(6thCir.1992).  Here,plaintiffallegesthatLanierhadtheauthoritytohire,discipline,promote,demote,orterminatealljuvenilecourtemployees,includingsecretariesandjuvenileofficers.SheallegedthatLanier,inretaliationfortherejectionofhissexualadvances,demotedherfromhersupervisoryposition.SheallegedthatLanierdeniedheranincreaseinsalaryandunilaterallychangedherjobrequirementsandresponsibilitiesonaweektoweekbasis.Takingtheallegationsofthecomplaintastrue,shehasdemonstratedthatLanierdirectedherwork,supervisedherassignments,controlledhersalary,anddeterminedherjobsecurity.  Theseallegationsmeettheelementsofthecommonlawtestofcontrolwhichaskswhethertheallegedemployerhadtherighttohire,fire,supervise,andsettheworkscheduleoftheemployee.Dealv.StateFarmMutualInsuranceCo.OfTexas,5F.3rd117,119(5thCir.1993).Theseallegationsalsomeettherequirementsofthe economicrealities test,whichaskswhethertheemployersetthetermsandconditionsofemploymentandcontrolledthejobperformanceandopportunitiesforadvancement.Arbruster;EyermanandDeal.  Inthecaseofharrassmentbyasupervisor,anemployerisresponsiblefortheactionsofitsagent,Piercev.CommonwealthLifeInsuranceCo.,40F.3d796(6thCir.1994),citingKauffmanv.AlliedSignal,Inc.,AutoliteDiv.,970F.2d178,183(6thCir.1992)(holdingthatthe kneworshouldhaveknown standarddoesnotapplytosexualharassmentcases);alsosee29C.F.R.1604.11(c)( ApplyinggeneralTitleVIIprinciples,anemployer...isresponsibleforitsactsandthoseofitsagentsandsupervisoryemployeeswithrespecttosexualharassmentregardlessofwhetherthespecificactswereauthorizedorevenforbiddenbytheemployerandregardlessofwhethertheemployerkneworwouldhaveknownoftheiroccurrence. ).Agencyisdeterminedbyexaminingfactorssuchaswhentheacttookplace,whereittookplace,andwhetheritwasforseeable.Yatesv.AvcoCorp.,819F.2d630,636(6thCir.1987).Anactmaybewithinthescopeofemploymentevenifitisspecificallyforbidden.Id.,citingRestatement(Second)ofAgency,217232(1958).  LaniersauthorityforpresidingovertheCountyJuvenileCourtwasbasedonanactofthestatelegislature.1972PublicActs16761680,ch.863.PlaintiffscomplaintallegesthattheStatewillfullyfailedtoadequatelysupervise,monitor,ordisciplineJudgeLanier,evenafterhebecamethesubjectofafederalinvestigation. 8   ׀TakingtheseallegationsalongwiththoseregardinghissupervisorycontroloftheJuvenileCourtastrue,wecannotsaytheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactswhichwouldentitlehertoreliefagainsttheState.SeePierce.  Atfirstblush,theStatemadeanappealingargumentthatitshouldnotbeconsideredanemployerbecauseitisnotinapositiontograntallthestatutoryrelieftheplaintiffwasentitledtoundertheAct.ThisargumentwasansweredinSibley,wheretheCourtsaid:0 0 Appellantarguesthatthisprovision concernsreliefthatonlyanemployercangivetoitsemployees .Thestatutoryennumerationofremediesisbyitsterms,however,illustrativeratherthanexhaustive;anditalsoreachesexplicitlybeyondthecontextofdirectemploymenttoemploymentagenciesandlabororganizations.Whileneitherhiringnorreinstatementmayberelevantoutsidethecontextofdirectemployment,bothinjunctiveandbackpayrelief(inthesenseofmonetarydamagesforlostemploymentopportunities)maybeavailable,inanappropriatecase,againstrespondentswhoareneitheractualnorpotentialdirectemployersofparticularcomplainants,butwhocontrolaccesstosuchemploymentandwhodenysuchaccessbyreferencetoinvidiouscriteria.488F.2d1342.  WeconcludethattheelementsofaTHRAclaimhavebeenallegedagainsttheState,andtheTrialCourtsjudgmentisreversed.ThecausewillbereinstatedtotheTrialCourtsdocketforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.  Thecostoftheappealisassessedtoappellee.      ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________WilliamF.Crawford,P.J.(W.S.)___________________________DavidR.Farmer,J.