ÿWPC  ¦M çþXy qÁEß0¸ñx‚õ5¶£X”ÌSš¾<îá$|KP«DÓúý–_6sHÑÆÿé¥ü)“Æ)Éé&pÔ‹Þ zªv®²•Ú É´,oµþŸÝÚuÊL—MwŸêZJb'\­×FpÒfŽmOF>t–PK¨u*ç·f^ Þ²©^§Fµ¬j ]cÓÿ•«ßx‰Ñœš÷.wà¡k:SÝíctÉCËÀ3þ…ͨ¶³èkÀžÖNqZÈ_6µeö&cßú{‡5º|€wè1áî tnÁF´Ì]¸ºš·’©À‡w1…Û7x_zI"}.ïò*m u4%%Ä{ÔúT}ô¹5êbVfS‰8²a¥™Jî Ê9îdçù³°šw ûˆ`$9/$=ÏÏô˜Rô± £ñ„p Ž ú$±)€Ýsj1]Z1¶ŠŽ¼AéO¢˜îÖ–4\gºÿÑšªÀ~m"¼ùŸ¬Rî(® @é¿b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N;=UNEE““““““““““““““““““““““““b•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0ë Bˆˆ 0¤¥ D3I D-| 0K©© ASôÆG 0¤  0D± A«õ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0 »-¢()â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularûr')ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G2òè$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€U„»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X/œX»»Ô d(|3Í$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€U„»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Í$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€U„»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€±»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ ¼±»» »ÔÑ8€'ÄXXdê»»d 8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ ¼  Ðà@  !ìàAugust€2000€SessionˆÐ È ÐÔ‡ X'ÄX» ¼±ÔÌò òÔ#† ¼±»X X'Ä#ÔÓ  ÓHOWARD€L.€FULLER,€v.€Ô_ÔASTECÔ_Ô€INDUSTRIES,€INC.òòóóÔ‡ X'ÄX» ¼±Ôó óÐ ¾ ÐÓãÓÌà@  ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyˆÐ ¶  Ðà@3 3 ìàNo.€98„C„0111€€€€€€Hon.€W.€Neil€Thomas,€III,€Circuit€JudgeˆÐ   ð ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFILED€SEPTEMBER€8,€2000Ð t Ä  Ðà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<]` A߈Ð ^®  ÐÌà@¶¶ìàNo.€E2000„00721„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€ˆÐ W§  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<*` AßÐ +{  ÐÔ_Ôó óÔ_Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌPlaintiff€filed€a€retaliatory€discharge€action€based€on€dismissal€from€employment€for€filing€aÐ ^ Ðworkerððs€compensation€claim.€€The€Trial€Judge€held€the€record€established€the€dismissal€was€notÐ øH Ðretaliatory.€€We€affirm.Ð â2 ÐÌÔ#† ¼±»X X'Ä@#ÔÔ‡ X'ÄX» ¼±ÔÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ  ð ÐÌòòHerschel€Pickens€FranksÔ#† ¼±»à X'Ä#ÔÔ‡ X'ÄX. ¼±Ô,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Houston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,Ô#† ¼±»à X'ÄS#ÔÔ‡ X'ÄX. ¼±ÔÐ tÄ ÐÔ_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€andòò€Charles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.Ô#† ¼±»à X'Ä#ÔÔ‡ X'ÄX. ¼±Ôóó,€joined.Ð ^® ÐÌMichael€A.€Anderson,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€appellant,€Howard€L.€Fuller.Ð 2‚ ÐÌW.€Jeffrey€Ô_ÔHollingsworthÔ_Ô€and€Alicia€Brown€Oliver,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€appellee,€Ô_ÔAstecÔ_ÔÐ V ÐIndustries,€Inc.Ð ð@ ÐÌÌÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#† ¼±»X X'Ä¢#ÔÔ‡ X'ÄX» ¼±ÔˆÐ ˜"è" ÐÌòòÌóóÔ#† ¼±»X X'Äb #ÔÔ‡ X'ÄX» ¼±ÔÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffððs€action€seeking€damages€for€retaliatory€discharge€for€filing€a€workerððsÐ @&!& Ðcompensation€claim€was€dismissed€by€the€Trial€Judge€by€summary€judgment.€€Plaintiff€has€appealed.Ð *'z"' ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€was€employed€in€1986€as€a€fitter/welder,€and€the€genesis€of€this€action€wasÐ þ(N$) Ðan€on„the„job€injury€claimed€by€plaintiff€in€October€of€1995,€where€he€sustained€disabling€injuries,Ð è)8%* Ðrendering€him€unable€to€perform€the€duties€of€his€former€position.€€He€was€on€medical€leave€ofÐ Ò*"&+ Ðabsence€from€his€injury€until€October€7,€1996.€€In€the€fall€of€1996,€the€employer€created€a€new€lightÐ ¼+ ', Ðduty€position€in€the€Department€of€Engineering€for€plaintiff,€which€duties€consisted€of€inputting€billsÐ ¦,ö'- ÐÔ_Ôand€materials€into€the€computer€for€accounting€purposes.€€He€was€hired€on€a€trial€basis€for€this€job,Ð -à(.ý Ðwith€no€guarantees€as€to€permanence.€He€was€employed€in€this€job€for€approximately€two€months,Ð ° Ðand€in€December€of€1996,€the€employerððs€President€issued€a€directive€that€all€department€budgetsÐ šê Ðwere€to€be€reduced€by€10%€across€the€board,€and€each€department€head€was€charged€with€theÐ „Ô Ðresponsibility€of€formulating€a€plan€to€achieve€this€reduction.€The€Engineering€Department€electedÐ n¾ Ðto€reduce€the€number€of€employees,€laying€off€seven€employees,€including€plaintiff,€in€January€1997.€Ð X¨ ÐIt€was€explained€that€plaintiffððs€position€was€abolished€because€it€was€not€integral€to€the€operationÐ B ’ Ðof€the€department.€€Ð , | Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffððs€workerððs€compensation€suit€was€settled€on€July€17,€1997,€and€he€receivedÐ  P Ða€60%€permanent€partial€disability€award.€€On€€January€5,€1998,€he€filed€this€action€alleging€aÐ ê :  Ðretaliatory€discharge.€Ð Ô $  ÐÌà  àà ` àResponding€to€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment,€the€Trial€Court€entered€aÐ ¨ø  Ðmemorandum€granting€summary€judgment.€€Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€standard€of€review€for€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€well€settled.€€OurÐ f¶  Ðinquiry€involves€purely€a€question€of€law,€and€no€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€TrialÐ P  ÐCourtððs€judgment.€€òòSee€Ô‡X'ÄXX X'ÄÔóóTenn.R.App.P.€13(d);€šÔ#† X'ÄXXX'ÄÀ#ÔÔ‡X'ÄXX X'ÄÔòòHembree€v.€Stateóó,€925€S.W.2d€513€(Tenn.€1996)Ô#† X'ÄXXX'Ä#Ô.€€Ð :Š Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àIn€deciding€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€courts€must€view€the€evidence€in€theÐ ^ Ðlight€most€favorable€to€the€non„moving€party€and€must€also€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€theÐ øH Ðnon„moving€partyððs€favor.€€See€òòStaples€v.€SBL€&€Associates,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.€2000).€Ð â2 ÐCourts€should€only€grant€summary€judgment€where€both€the€facts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawnÐ Ì Ðfrom€the€facts€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.€See€òòStaplesóó.Ð ¶ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àA€cause€of€action€for€retaliatory€discharge€based€upon€the€filing€of€a€workerððsÐ ŠÚ Ðcompensation€claim€is€actionable€in€this€State.€€òòClanton€v.€Cain„Sloan€Co.óó,€677€S.W.2d€441€(Tenn.Ð tÄ Ð1984).€€Ð ^® ÐÌà  àà ` àFour€elements€compose€the€cause€of€action€for€discharge€in€retaliation€for€assertingÐ 2‚ Ða€workersðð€compensation€claim:Ð  l Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà0  àà0` (#(#à(1)€the€plaintiff€was€an€employee€of€the€defendant€at€the€time€of€the€injury;Ðð!@ ` (#` (# ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð à(2)the€plaintiff€made€a€claim€against€the€defendant€for€workerððs€compensationÐ Ä#" Ðbenefits;€Ð®$þ#` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð à(3)€the€defendant€terminated€the€plaintiffððs€employment;€andЂ&Ò!%` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð à(4)€the€claim€for€workersðð€compensation€benefits€was€a€substantial€factor€inÐ V(¦#' Ðthe€employerððs€motivation€to€terminate€the€employeeððs€employment.Ð@)$(` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌòòÓkÓAnderson€v.€Standard€Register€Company,óó€857€S.W.2d€555„558€(Tenn.€1993).€€Ð +d&* ÐÓ»Óà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€found€that€plaintiff€failed€to€establish€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€forÐ ° Ðretaliatory€discharge,€in€that€he€had€not€shown€that€his€claim€for€workerððs€compensation€benefits€wasÐ šê Ða€substantial€factor€in€his€employerððs€motivation€to€terminate€him.€€Initially€he€failed€to€show€factsÐ „Ô Ðto€rebut€the€employerððs€statement€of€its€legitimate€business€reason€for€termination.€€Specifically,€theÐ n¾ ÐTrial€Court€found€that€plaintiff€had€offered€no€evidence€to€support€a€claim€of€retaliatory€dischargeÐ X¨ Ðð ðother€than€his€own€feelingsðð€and€that€the€plaintiff€had€ð ðno€evidence€that€the€individuals€who€wereÐ B ’ Ðseparated€from€Astecððs€employment€at€the€time€of€his€separation€were€terminated€to€provide€a€pretextÐ , | Ðfor€Astec€to€retaliate€against€him.ðð€€The€plaintiff€in€his€deposition€answered€as€follows:Ð  f ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àQ.€€à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àIs€it€your€opinion€that€the€reason€you€had€been€laid€off€was€becauseÐ ê :  Ðyou€had€filed€the€workersðð€comp€claim€because€of€you€accident€inÐ Ô $  Ð1995?о ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àA.€€à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àI€felt€it€was.Ð’â ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àQ.€€à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àWhat€evidence€fo€you€have€to€support€that?Ðf¶ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àA.€€à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àMy€own€feelings.Ð:Џ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àQ.€€à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àDo€you€have€anything€else€besides€your€own€feelings?Ð^¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àA.€€à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àNot€really.Ðâ2¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€order€to€establish€the€element€of€causation,€the€plaintiff€must€present€some€proofÐ ¶ Ðother€than€merely€the€facts€showing€his€employment,€his€exercise€of€rights€under€the€WorkersððÐ  ð ÐCompensation€Law,€and€his€subsequent€discharge.€€òòThomason€v.€Better„Bilt€Aluminum€Prods.,€Inc.óó,Ð ŠÚ Ð831€S.W.2d€291,€293€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Various€Courts€have€considered€what€type€ofÐ tÄ Ðcircumstantial€evidence€will€support€the€necessary€causal€link.€€For€example,€a€plaintiffððs€subjectiveÐ ^® Ðbeliefs€and€speculations€about€the€reason€for€her€discharge€likewise€do€not€establish€the€necessaryÐ H˜ Ðcausal€link.€€See€òòReed€v.€Alamo€Rent„A„Car,€Inc.óó,€4€S.W.3d€677€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);€òòAndersonóó.€Ð 2‚ ÐMoreover,€the€mere€proximity€in€time€between€the€employeeððs€filing€of€a€workersðð€compensationÐ  l Ðsuit€and€the€termination€of€the€employee€is€insufficient€to€establish€a€€òòprima€facieóó€case.€€See€òòBirchettÐ !V Ðv.€Nashville€Co.,€Inc.óó,€2000€WL€640895€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€19,€2000).Ð ð!@  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àAssuming€òòarguendoóó€that€plaintiff€established€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€for€a€retaliatoryÐ Ä#" Ðdischarge,€which€we€do€not€find,€the€burden€would€then€shift€to€the€employer€to€show€a€legitimateÐ ®$þ# Ðreason€for€plaintiffððs€discharge.€€The€employer€asserts€that€plaintiffððs€lay„off€was€based€on€aÐ ˜%è $ Ðreduction€of€force€necessitated€by€a€directive€to€the€engineering€department€to€reduce€its€budget€byÐ ‚&Ò!% Ðten€percent.€€The€head€of€the€department€stated€that€he€decided€to€eliminate€plaintiffððs€positionÐ l'¼"& Ðbecause€it€was€less€essential€than€that€of€the€draftsmen.€€According€to€him,€while€the€elimination€ofÐ V(¦#' Ðplaintiffððs€position€would€have€an€impact€on€the€department,€it€would€not€have€the€same€ð ðdevastatingÐ @)$( Ðimpact€on€the€Engineering€Departmentðð€that€the€absence€of€a€significant€number€of€draftsmen€wouldÐ **z%) Ðhave.€€It€is€undisputed€that€plaintiff€did€not€possess€the€skills€necessary€for€the€job€of€draftsman.€€Ð +d&* Ðà  àÐ þ+N'+ Ðà  àà ` àThe€termination€of€a€plaintiff€due€to€general€business€conditions€and€not€for€reasonsÐ ° Ðspecific€to€the€individual€is€generally€found€to€be€for€a€legitimate,€non„pretextual€reason.€€SeeÐ šê ÐòòAndersonóó€(citing€2A€A.€Larson,€the€Law€of€Workmenððs€Compensation,€ðð€68.36(d),€pp.€188„191Ð „Ô Ð(1990)).€€This€is€particularly€true€where€there€are€general€layoffs€involving€other€employees€whichÐ n¾ Ðare€in€no€way€involved€in€any€retaliation.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð X¨ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€argues€that€of€the€other€six€employees€terminated,€€two€permanent€employeesÐ , | Ðvoluntarily€took€early€retirement,€and€the€other€four€were€temporary€employees,€and€that€he€was€theÐ  f Ðonly€full€time€employee€that€was€involuntarily€laid€off.€€Further€he€was€the€only€employee€at€the€timeÐ  P Ðwith€a€pending€workersðð€compensation€claim.€He€points€out€that€several€new€employees€were€addedÐ ê :  Ðto€the€Engineering€Department€within€six€months€of€his€layoff,€and€two€of€the€employees€who€wereÐ Ô $  Ðlaid€off€at€the€same€time€with€him€were€subsequently€rehired.Ð ¾  Ѐ€Ð ¨ø  Ðà  àà ` àDespite€these€circumstances,€plaintiff€admits€that€there€was€a€cost„cutting€programÐ ’â  Ðimplemented,€and€has€offered€nothing€to€show€that€the€six€other€employees€who€were€terminatedÐ |Ì  Ðwere€laid€off€simply€to€provide€a€pretext€for€the€employerððs€retaliation.€€Of€the€two€laid€offÐ f¶  Ðemployees€who€were€subsequently€rehired,€one€was€hired€as€a€part„time€draftsman€with€lower€payÐ P  Ðand€no€benefits,€and€the€other€was€hired€part„time€in€a€different€department.€€And€while€additionalÐ :Š Ðemployees€were€hired€by€the€Engineering€Department€after€plaintiff€was€laid€off,€plaintiffððs€oldÐ $t Ðposition€was€never€filled;€his€duties€were€integrated€into€the€draftsmenððs€jobs.€€Ð ^ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àWe€conclude,€because€plaintiff€failed€to€produce€evidence€to€rebut€defendantððs€Ð â2 Ðlegitimate€reason€for€his€termination,€the€Trial€Court€properly€granted€summary€judgment€to€theÐ Ì Ðdefendant.Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€affirm€the€summary€judgment€and€remand€with€costs€assessed€to€the€plaintiff,Ð ŠÚ ÐHoward€L.€Fuller.Ð tÄ ÐÌÔ#† ¼±»X X'Ä #ÔÔ‡ X'ÄX» ¼±ÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ð  l Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€J.Ð !V Ðóó