WPC  JowUcRb r@&ۥ;+!`$6n>f:4e7z+é*jMKYܡE^Ȧi˰_WLkaI=_]O(TdT{n8.xFG jKhs'jm^ ?+ߙfC.OLn.!'z@y+@+i>&$\ V$M54\g @˰V.uN حxKz:N,( H}`v?f`uH h+r3GTmFb -' RWm K!2-} eGok}< 6qf ATK"`fˠCjuj=[8μ zRpU> {unH҃ėSG/U>@]WRu>(̍SDBM4P<]HDktb#\^  %) 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'NEj66"b 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K AS_ 0x 0D A`HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0)L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular~(ing 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|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  R"$      4    _Conversely,therelateddoctrineofnullumtempusoccuritregi( timedoesnotrunagainsttheking)prevents  theapplicationofastatuteoflimitationsagainstaclaimbytheStateoralocalgovernment.HamiltonCountyBd.of t Educ.v.AsbestosprayCorp.,909S.W.2d783,785(Tenn.1995).  R"$      5    _Tenn.CodeAnn.283104(a)(Supp.1999),theoneyearstatuteoflimitationsfortortactions,applied  becauseTenn.CodeAnn.421311(d)hadnotyetbeenadoptedwhentheplaintiffscauseofactionarose.SeeWebster t v.TennesseeBd.ofRegents,902S.W.2dat414.Asmentionedpreviously,Tenn.CodeAnn.421311(d)now 8 explicitlyappliesaoneyearstatuteoflimitationstoactionsbroughtpursuanttotheTennesseeHumanRightsAct.See L Weberv.Moses,938S.W.2d387,390n.3(Tenn.1996). ` R"$      3    _Tenn.CodeAnn.29-20-201(a)(Supp.1999)providesthat [e]xceptasmaybeotherwiseprovidedinthis  chapter,allgovernmentalentitiesshallbeimmunefromsuitforanyinjurywhichmayresultfromtheactivitiesofsuch t governmentalentitieswhereinsuchgovernmentalentitiesareengagedintheexerciseanddischargeofanyoftheir 8 functions,governmentalorproprietary.G  R"$      1    _WetakethesefactsfromtheallegationsinMs.Milhousscomplaintwhich,forthepurposeofthemotionto  dismiss,weconsidertobetrue.Bellv.Icard,Merrill,Cullis,Timm,Furen&Ginsburg,P.A.,986S.W.2d550,554  (Tenn.1999).      R"$      2    _TherecordcontainslittleinformationregardingthelitigationintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt.Therecord  doesnotindicatetheprecisedatewhenMs.MilhousfiledhercomplaintorwhentheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt t dismissedit.ThereisapparentlynodisputethatMs.Milhoussfederalcomplaintwastimelyfiled. - -(|G2"$ !.8Gdd8         0   d(|3$ !.8Gdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Gdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Gdd8     _  G8XXdd8  dO@ @tGINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#G@t9#Ԉ &   March1998Session  L XXG #GXX#CYNTHIAMILHOUSv.THEMETROPOLITANGOVERNMENTOF  J NASHVILLEANDDAVIDSONCOUNTYXXG   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  ^ @@No.97804IIIEllenHobbsLyle,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE< ` A  "  @@TTNo.M199700226_COA_ԄR3CVFiled_August_Ԁ31,2000   AV) ` dE<` A      #GXX#XXGThisappealinvolvesadisputebetweenacityemployeeandheremployerregardingasexual   harassmentclaim.TheemployeeoriginallyfiledsuitintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe  MiddleDistrictofTennesseeallegingviolationsofbothfederalandstatelaw.Afterthefederalcourt  dismissedherstatelawclaims,theemployeefiledsuitagainstthecityintheChanceryCourtfor t DavidsonCountyallegingviolationsoftheTennesseeHumanRightsAct.Thetrialcourtdismissed ` thecomplaintbecausetheapplicableoneyearstatuteoflimitationshadelapsedbythetimethe L employeefiledhercomplaintinstatecourt.Theemployeearguesonthisappealthatthesavings 8x statuteinTenn.CodeAnn.28-1-115(Supp.1999)tolledthestatuteoflimitationsforoneyear $d afterthefederalcourtdismissedherstatelawclaim.Weholdthatthedoctrineofsovereign P immunityprecludestheapplicationofthissavingsstatutetoanactionagainstalocalgovernmental < bodyand,therefore,affirmthetrialcourt. (  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed     WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHenryF.Todd,P.J.,M.S.,  andBenH.Cantrell,J.,joined.  SandraC.Isom,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,CynthiaMilhous. \!! JamesL.Murphy,IIIandWilliamMichaelSafley,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee, 4#t# MetropolitanGovernmentforNashvilleandDavidsonCounty.  $` $ @66' OPINION  %8"&   CynthiaMilhouswasemployedasawarrantofficerintheDavidsonCountySheriffsOffice. '$( InNovember1991,severalofherfellowwarrantofficersbegantosexuallyharassher.  #  1      ׀The ($) harassmenttooktheformofoffensivejokesandcommentsandunwantedphysicaltouching.Ms. )%* Milhoustoldtheofficersthatshedidnotliketheirconductorremarks.Whentheconduct *&+ dO    continued,Ms.MilhouscomplainedtohersupervisorsandtotheMetropolitanGovernments  EmployeeAssistanceProgram.OnAugust19,1993,thesheriffrevokedMs.Milhousscommission  asadeputysheriff,orderedhertoturninherbadge,revolver,andautomobile,andplacedheron  administrativeleavewithpay. t   Ms.MilhousfiledadiscriminationcomplaintwiththeEEOCinSeptember1993.Later,she L  filedsuitintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennessee.  #  2      ׀OnJune5,1996, 8  theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtdeclinedtoexercisejurisdictionoverMs.Milhoussstatelaw $ t claims,andonMarch7,1997,shesuedtheMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidson  ` County,allegingviolationsoftheTennesseeHumanRightsAct.TheMetropolitanGovernment  L  movedtodismissMs.MilhousscomplaintbasedontheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsinTenn.  8  CodeAnn.421311(d)(1998).WhileMs.Milhousagreedthathercomplaintinstatecourtwas $  filedmorethanoneyearaftertheallegeddiscriminatorypracticesceased,sheassertedhersuitwas   permittedbythesavingsstatuteinTenn.CodeAnn.281115.OnOctober10,1997,thetrialcourt   heldthatthesavingsstatutedidnotapplytoactionsagainsttheMetropolitanGovernmentand   dismissedMs.Milhoussactiononthegroundthatitwastimebarred.Ms.Milhoushasnow   appealed. p @) I.  H      Thecommonlawdoctrineofsovereignimmunityrestrictstheabilityofpersonstosuethe  p StateofTennesseeoritspoliticalsubdivisions.ItisembodiedinTenn.Const.art.I,17which  \ providesthat [s]uitsmaybebroughtagainsttheStateinsuchmannerandinsuchcourtsasthe H Legislaturemaybylawdirect.Thus,waiversofsovereignimmunitymustbeembodiedinstatutes, 4 andthesestatuteswillbeconstruednarrowlybecausetheyareinderogationofthecommonlaw.   Jordanv.BaptistThreeRiversHosp.,984S.W.2d593,599(Tenn.1999);Robertsv.BlountMeml   Hosp.,963S.W.2d744,746(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).    TheTennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityActcodifiesthedoctrineofsovereignimmunity  withregardtolocalgovernmententities.  #  3      ׀Hawksv.CityofWestmoreland,960S.W.2d10,14(Tenn. l 1997);Jenkinsv.LoudonCounty,736S.W.2d603,608(Tenn.1987);CityofLavergnev.Southern X  Silver,Inc.,872S.W.2d687,690(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Whileitcarvesoutcertainexceptions, D! noneoftheseexceptionsarerelevanthere.SeeLuciusv.CityofMemphis,925S.W.2d522,525 0"  (Tenn.1996);Ezellv.Cockrell,902S.W.2d394,399400(Tenn.1995). #l!  $X"   Thedoctrineofsovereignimmunityrequiresthatstatuteslimitingthemannerandtimefor  bringingactionsagainsttheStateoralocalgovernmentmustbestrictlyenforced.  #  4      ׀Accordingly,  generalsavingsstatutescannotapplytosuitsagainsttheStateoralocalgovernment,unlessthe  statutespecificallystatesthatitappliestogovernmental,aswellasprivate,defendants.Roettgerv. t MetropolitanGovt,991S.W.2d244,245(Tenn.1999);AutomobileSalesCo.v.Johnson,174Tenn. ` 38,49,122S.W.2d453,458(1938);Nancev.CityofKnoxville,883S.W.2d629,63132(Tenn.Ct. L  App.1994).ThisprincipleappliestoclaimsundertheTennesseeHumanRightsAct,Websterv. 8  TennesseeBd.ofRegents,902S.W.2d412,414(Tenn.Ct.App.1995),aswellastoclaimsfor $ t retaliatorydischargeandothercivilrightsviolations.Smithv.MetropolitanGovt,No.01A019607  ` CV00338,1997WL13749n.1,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.16,1997),perm.appealdenied,(Tenn.  L  July14,1997).  8    InWebsterv.TennesseeBd.ofRegents,thiscourtaddressedasetoffactsalmostidentical   tothefactsofthiscase.AnemployeewhowasfiredfromhisjobatTennesseeStateUniversity,   filedadiscriminationactionagainsttheuniversityintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt.Afterthe   federalcourtdismissedthesuit,theemployeefiledsuitinstatecourtallegingviolationsofthe   TennesseeHumanRightsAct.Becausetheapplicablestatuteoflimitations  #  5      ׀hadrunbythetimehe p filedsuitinstatecourt,theemployeereliedonthesavingsstatutesinTenn.CodeAnn.281105, \ Є115.Thiscourtheldthatsovereignimmunityprecludedtheapplicationofthesavingsstatutesto H actionsagainstthestatebecausethesavingsstatutesdonotspecificallyincludetheState.Webster 4 v.TennesseeBd.ofRegents,902S.W.2dat41415.  p   ThedoctrineofsovereignimmunitylikewiseprecludestheapplicationofTenn.CodeAnn. H 28-1-115toMs.MilhoussclaimsagainsttheMetropolitanGovernmentbecausethesavings 4 statutedoesnotspecificallyapplytoactionsagainststateorlocalgovernment.Accordingly,Ms.   MilhousssuitisbarredbytheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsapplicabletotheTennesseeHuman   RightsAct.Thetrialcourt,therefore,correctlydismissedherlawsuit.   #l! @) II.     Weaffirmthejudgmentandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforwhateverfurther  proceedingsmayberequired.WealsotaxthecostsofthisappealtoCynthiaMilhousforwhich t execution,ifnecessary,mayissue. `    `     h     ___________________________________  `    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE