ÿWPCê &Sppö¼©Q•-ç|¤™ È9Pqìy¯w#\*Í¿ ÄN‰ÌL+qª¨=Î"Â|ÇŠÐmïþ.“¢vô ÜéViª÷!Æ./$/áOÝ‹™\}41’ëåiÁL–Ý¡ ò4ŽÎs…O)±êaŒ´eê¤é ’™ÃôÝàÖ˜Œx=^cJÍhÔj\UòJ6Z ·ÓˆUõÔWÏRN¾˜Ç fØkNü ¼ÿ¡ÿ•)oÁÌÎŽÁ·xo‡da‚7ܽ¶ýõ÷¯³¡Ÿô%Ñ*v€ûw#^3ÉgÏe È·IúØh¿ú]ü)MEEÞOSŒ®vÙö¦ ¬o‡à_CN„íéý _VPÁ¯Ÿoã›õ:€ð XQÌ tY<ß°Ø>FhÅ(;WÛ¦û6üUWÑr‰¹Ô,¹â6¦®ƒ/)š$º2±„^N¡èo‰„vä~‘ ðb»ÈÇN®ÆKƒ¯=–!gxÇÃ1`”2Þø¯[ˆ¯8Uf‰L §‡N šsbõukѸ³7å{ÚÐпÇð]2¢dcÎWäS´îR…„f>b´©ØÞ'¬Ðgc .IV̧]“ÊA©,æÆ)¨ýYþ©e8`š”ûÎqtœÞê8ˆ)X$ˆò˜#!– UN· % 0( w3 47 K Z -b UN NÝ ß má 5ø U:-^ gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg 0Ds D5· Bìììì AQ ÆZ 0D  0Dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 0B¨˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡{Z='%%&&''((3|x #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#Ñ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ +Ý ƒb¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XåÿXXXÔÔ€U XXåÿÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XåÿXU ÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€12,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularYxL'L (3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý\\\\)ÿÿ!dxdx dabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2ÿ¥$Squareððà0  àÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ€ úÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑò òÔ‡ XW$XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôà@ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óˆÐ ° Ðò òßx€`[B2.jzÔ"`  `€€@ÿEœ¾` 8ttxPÔœð " xßà@úú$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ œì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌóóÌDANIEL€L.€SINCLAIR,à  àà h àà À à)Ð L œ Ðó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ 8 ˆ Ðà  àPlaintiff/Appellant,€à  àà h à€€€€ò ò€€à À à)ó óà  àTennessee€Claims€Commission€No.€200057Ð $ t Ðò òà  àó ó€€€€€€€€€à ` àà ¸ àò ò€€à  àà h àà À à)ó óà  àà p àÐ  d Ðò òv.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Ð  T  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9901„BC„00018ò òÐ ð @  ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€à h àà À à)€Ð à0  Ðà  àó ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Ì  Ðà  àDefendant/Appellee.à  àà h àò òà À à)Ð ¼  ÐÌÌÌà@  ìàó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€TENNESSEE€CLAIMS€COMMISSION€€€€€€€€€ˆÐ pÀ Ðà@ïïìàMIDDLE€DIVISION€€€€€€€ˆÌÌÌà@ÿÿ ìàTHE€HONORABLE€W.€R.€BAKER,€CLAIMS€COMMISSIONER,€MIDDLE€DIVISIONˆÌòòÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:òòà  àà h àà À àFor€the€Defendant/Ô#†XW$XX XW$“#ÔÔ‡ XW$XXXW$ÔAppelleeóó:à  àà x àòòÐ ä4 ÐÌóóWilliam€Kennerly€Burger€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à h à€€€€€€€€€€€€Paul€G.€Summers€€€€€€€Ð ¼  ÐMurfreesboro,€Tennesseeà  àà h àà À àMichael€E.€MooreÐ ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMeredith€DevaultÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€Tennessee€ÌÌÌÌò òÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAFFIRMEDÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð à&0"% Ðà  àÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.Ð h,¸'+ ÐÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.€€€Ô#†XW$XX XW$©#ÔÐ @.)- ÐÌÓÓÐ  0h+/ ÐÑ úÑâ  âÑ8€šXXdðdÈ8Ñâ  âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔØØÑ  ÑÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ à ÐÌà  àThis€case€involves€a€claim€against€the€State€of€Tennessee€under€Tennesseeððs€whistleblowerÐ P   Ðstatute.€€The€Claims€Commission€found€that€it€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€and€dismissed€theÐ 0 € Ðplaintiffððs€complaint.€€We€affirm.Ð `  Ðà  àDaniel€L.€Sinclair€(ð ðSinclairðð),€was€Associate€Director€for€Facilities€Maintenance€at€MiddleÐ ð@  ÐTennessee€State€University€(ð ðMTSUðð)€from€1986€until€1993.€€In€1991,€and€again€in€1992,€SinclairÐ Ð  Ðcomplained€to€University€officials€that€his€immediate€supervisor€violated€safety€regulations€byÐ ° Ðattempting€to€remove€asbestos„wrapped€pipes€and€heaters€from€a€university€dormitory€without€usingÐ à Ðproper€procedures€or€personnel.€€Sinclairððs€employment€was€terminated€in€1993.Ð pÀ Ðà  àIn€April€1993,€Sinclair€filed€a€complaint€with€the€Division€of€Claims€Administration,€seekingÐ P  Ðworkerððs€compensation€benefits.€€The€claim€was€transferred€to€the€Tennessee€Claims€CommissionÐ 0€ Ðin€October€1993.€€In€April€1994,€Sinclair€amended€his€original€complaint€to€add€a€claim€underÐ ` ÐTennesseeððs€ð ðwhistleblower€statute,ðð€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„1„304.€€This€statute€provides:Ð ð@ ÐÓÓà8  à(a)€No€employee€shall€be€discharged€or€terminated€solely€for€refusing€to€participateÐ Ð  Ðin,€or€refusing€to€remain€silent€about,€illegal€activities.ÐÀ!Ð Ð  ÐÌà@$$(ìà*€*€*ˆÐ  #ð! ÐÌà8  à(d)€Any€employee€terminated€in€violation€of€subsection€(a)€shall€have€a€cause€ofÐ €%Ð # Ðaction€against€the€employer€for€retaliatory€discharge€and€any€other€damages€to€whichÐ p&À!$ Ðthe€employee€may€be€entitled.Ð`'°"%Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„1„304(a)€and€(d)€(Supp.€1998).€€Sinclair€alleged€that€he€was€fired€for€refusingÐ @)$' Ðto€remain€silent€about€MTSUððs€alleged€illegal€removal€of€asbestos„wrapped€pipes€and€heaters€fromÐ  +p&) Ðthe€dormitory.€€Sinclair€based€the€Commissionððs€authority€to€hear€the€whistleblower€claim€onÐ -P(+ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(N),€which€grants€the€Commission€exclusive€jurisdictionÐ à.0*- Ðover€all€monetary€disputes€against€the€State€arising€out€of€€ð ðnegligent€deprivation€of€statutory€rights.ððÐ À0,/ Ðà  àIn€July€1994,€the€State€moved€to€dismiss€Sinclairððs€whistleblower€claim€for€lack€of€subjectÐ  2ð-1 Ðmatter€jurisdiction.€€It€argued€that€Sinclair€did€not€have€a€right€against€the€State€under€TennesseeÐ €4Ð/3 ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€50„1„304€because€the€statute€was€silent€regarding€any€application€to€the€State,€andÐ `6°15 Ðunder€the€doctrine€of€sovereign€immunity,€a€suit€may€not€be€brought€against€the€State€absent€expressÐ @837 Ðauthorization€from€the€Legislature.€€In€October€1994,€the€Claims€Commission€dismissed€SinclairððsÐ  :p59 Ðwhistleblower€claim.€€The€Claims€Commission€reasoned€that€it€found€no€reference€to€the€State€of€Ð