WPC Qyo"ʸ Xh:BQ%hLNKzj|i5_QިeGDn9Id!AdkMST`TϥɹDe^" `YtJ#rİy_i2ΈPh&|}ekKuN6>(&UG.;F |B?ѝ Sծɺ3v4>! r|-OC29|E>aF̅LHSy#aUif8Wo&v(ߛtstk4acHb\qX0.*%A1F2*ŪC(~h@ rAɂwr ̱ ?@g4"zҿ%A'Æ^ ; 0 EnlJ!iP,y'_o^ ǬO| /I6!J@W/x^^`qwVR^M9gEb %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m # UN   k 1UNNETGGEb 0 B 0 D3Q D- 0K ASO 0 0D A-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular[-01s023|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular TIPTONBrasfield COApretextual P.J. W.S.HighersDeslauriersPrather CBLAssocsSeatonp]rovideCarmikeRidenourMontagnearguendo- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3y,$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3y,$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ ,   October14,2002Session X XX #XX#WILLIAMFOXv.BAPTISTMEMORIALHOSPITALTIPTONXX   ` @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtfor_Tipton_ԀCounty  h @@No.16,814MarthaB.Brasfield,Judge  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W200200139COAR3CVFiledDecember9,_2002_ '  Ѐ   AV) ` dE<` A       XXXXTheplaintiffinthiscaseallegeshewaswrongfullyterminatedbyBaptistMemorialHospital,_Tipton_,  inviolationofTenn.Code.Ann.421101etseq,whichprohibitsemploymentdiscrimination  basedonage.ThetrialcourtawardedsummaryjudgmenttoBaptistMemorialHospital,findingits  statedreasonsforterminatingtheplaintiffwerelegitimateandnotpretextual.Weaffirm. z #XXX X##XXt#XX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed;and V Remanded  F   #X8#XX.DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S., &v andAlanE.Highers,J.,joined. f FrankDeslauriers,Covington,Tennessee,fortheappellant,WilliamFox. F PaulE.Prather,W.TerrySmith,Jr.,andDavidS.Wilson,III,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee, & BaptistMemorialHospital_Tipton_.   OPINION #XX&#XX !  #XXn #  XX XXXX   WilliamFox(Mr.Fox)wasemployedbyBaptistMemorialHospital,_Tipton_,( Baptist)as #" directoroftheRespiratoryCareandCardiologyDepartmentfromDecemberof1988untilhewas r$# terminatedonOctober16,1997.Whenhewasterminated,Mr.Foxwasoverfortyyearsofage.He ^% $ wasreplacedbyathirtysevenyearoldwhopreviouslyhadbeenthedirectorofRespiratoryand J&!% CardiologyatBaptistsLauderdalehospital.Mr.FoxfiledsuitagainstBaptistonMarch20,1998, 6'"& allegingagediscriminationinviolationofTenn.CodeAnn.421101 etseq.  "(r#'   Asdepartmentdirector,Mr.Foxwasresponsibleformanagementofthedepartmentand )N%) supervisedsixemployeesintheRespiratory,CardiologyandNeurologyDepartments.According *:&* toMr.Fox,hereceivedonly positiveemploymentappraisalsduringhistenurewithBaptist. +&'+ AccordingtoBaptist,hewasnotifiedseveraltimesofbehavioralproblemsrelatedtohisconduct ,(, towardemployeesinhisdepartment.BaptistrefersspecificallytoMr.Foxs1990and1996 -(- evaluations,inwhichMr.Foxwasadvisedthatheneededtobettercontrolhiscomposureand  emotions.BaptistalsocitesemployeereportschargingMr.Foxwithunprofessionalbehavior.In  itsterminationlettertoMr.Fox,BaptiststateditwasterminatingMr.Foxforhisunprofessional  treatmentofpersonneland failuretoprovideeffectiveleadership. t   ThetrialcourtdidnotspecificallyruleonwhetherMr.Foxprovedaprimafaciecaseofage L  discrimination.ThecourtawardedsummaryjudgmenttoBaptistuponfindingthatBaptistsreasons 8  forterminatingMr.Foxwerelegitimateandnotpretextual.Mr.Foxproperlyperfectedanappeal $ t tothisCourt.  `   `   Issue   <    Mr.Foxraisesthefollowingissueforourreview:   8   ` Didplaintiffpresentsufficientevidencetocreateajuryquestionasto   whetherornotdefendantsstatedreasonsforterminatingplaintiffsemployment   wereapretext?p     StandardofReview  H j#XXX X #XXXX  Summaryjudgmentisappropriatewhentherearenogenuineissuesregardingmaterialfacts h ofthecauseofaction,andthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R. T Civ.P.56.04.Indeterminingwhethertoawardsummaryjudgment,thecourtmustviewthe @ evidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,drawingallreasonableinferencesin , favorofthenonmovingparty. Staplesv.CBL&Assocs. ,15S.W.3d83,89(Tenn.2000).Summary  judgmentshouldbeawardedonlywhenareasonablepersoncouldreachonlyoneconclusionbased  onthefactsandinferencesdrawnfromthosefacts. Id. Whenapartymakesaproperlysupported  motionforsummaryjudgment,theburdenshiftstothenonmovingpartytoestablishtheexistence  ofdisputedmaterialfacts. Id. #XXXX# XXXXԀWereviewanawardofsummaryjudgment denovo ,withno x presumptionofcorrectnessaffordedtothetrialcourt. Guyv.Mut.ofOmahaIns.Co. ,79S.W.3d d 528,534(Tenn.2002). Asinthiscase,whentheprimarydeterminationconcernstheemployers P  motivation,theappellatecourtmustdeterminewhetherthe"profferedadmissibleevidenceshows