’WPC‚9 b %lUNr 0 ˆĄUNH z–Ņ 0Jā 0D,ĘpĘ6 Ęü ĘĀ 0Tˆ NÜ 0^Ž ^ < EH wJ NN 4P 0hd Ģ Ū mŻ #Įō 0rµ 0|' 0†£) 01 1uĮ 0d6U>šU*ŲbU* ä4Ł ń˜ /?Ē(Œ+v~’-vÓ/ 0ėć4 BĪ5 0@ė5 D3+6 D-^6 0K‹6 ASÖ6Ę)7 0¤ļ7 0D“8 A«×8»(ÖĆ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2 ’’0Indent1Ō2ŌŌ3  Ō(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52" ’’0Indent2ą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2, ’’0Indent3ą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō•~B+s j5+˜Cü'£<Ԝ26 ’’0Indent4ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō3|x’U‹’ĄĄĄ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eČČ,,,,ČČ02@ ’’0Indent5ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2J ’’0Indent6ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2T ’’0Indent7ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō 2^ ’’0Indent8ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō  !# ’’?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ’’8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times- ł-< Œ 9p`(Arial ŚŻ ƒ!ŻŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŌ€,ŌŌ€,¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŻ ƒR$Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€,ōŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThe€record€indicates€that€Mr.€Moore€did€not€work€for€NES€during€the€period€of€December,€1972,€throughĻJanuary,€1974€but€that,€other€than€this€brief€hiatus,€Mr.€Moore€has€been€an€NES€employee€since€1964.Ģ ĻŻ ƒ!ŻŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŌ€,ŌŌ€,¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŻ ƒR$Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€,ōŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌAlthough€only€Mr.€Moore€submitted€an€appellate€brief€in€this€matter,€Mr.€Moore€filed€an€individualĻnotice€of€appeal€to€this€court,€and€Mr.€Bruce€and€Mr.€Spears€filed€a€joint€notice€of€appeal.Ģ Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€,ŌŌ€,¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŻ ƒR$Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€,ōŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThe€Complaint€does€not€enumerate€any€of€the€incidents€complained€of€by€either€Mr.€Bruce€or€Mr.€Spears,Ļbut€Plaintiffsšš€Memorandum€of€Law€in€Support€of€Plaintiffsšš€Motion€for€Partial€Summary€Judgment€indicates€thatĻPlaintiffs€were€each€denied€promotion€four€(4)€times.Ģ Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€,ŌŌ€,¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŻ ƒR$Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€,ōŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌDefendants€have€argued€that€some€of€Plaintiff€Mooreššs€claims€are€barred€because€Mr.€Moore€institutedĻadministrative€proceedings€under€the€civil€service€rules.€€In€support€of€its€position,€NES€cites€the€case€of€ņņņ ņPuckettĻv.€Tennessee€Eastman€Co.óóó ó,€889€F.2d€1481€(6th€Cir.€1989).€€However,€ņņņ ņPuckettóóó ó€only€addressed€the€issue€ofĻexhaustion€of€the€administrative€remedy€available€ņņunder€the€THRAóó.€€Since€NES€has€cited€no€other€cases€in€supportĻof€this€position,€we€find€this€argument€to€be€without€merit.Ģ Ž Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€,ŌŌ€,¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŻ ƒR$Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€,ōŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThat€section€provides:ĢĢą8 ąšš€4„21„306.€RemediesĢą8 ąą ą(a)€Affirmative€action€ordered€under€this€section€may€include,€but€it€is€not€limited€to:Ģą8 ąą ą(1)€Hiring,€reinstatement€or€upgrading€of€employees€with€or€without€back€pay.€€InterimĻearnings€or€amounts€earnable€with€reasonable€diligence€by€the€person€or€persons€discriminatedĻagainst€shall€operate€to€reduce€the€back€pay€otherwise€allowable;Ģą8 ąą ą(2)€Admission€or€restoration€of€individuals€to€union€membership,€admission€to,€orĻparticipation€in,€a€guidance€program,€apprenticeship,€training€program,€on„the„job€trainingĻprogram,€or€other€occupational€training€or€retraining€program,€and€the€utilization€of€objectiveĻcriteria€in€the€admission€of€individuals€to€such€programs;Ģą8 ąą ą(3)€Admission€of€individuals€to€a€place€of€public€accommodation,€resort€or€amusement;Ģą8 ąą ą(4)€The€extension€to€all€individuals€of€the€full€and€equal€enjoyment€of€the€advantages,Ļfacilities,€privileges€and€services€of€the€respondent;Ģą8 ąą ą(5)€Reporting€as€to€the€manner€of€compliance;Ģą8 ąą ą(6)€Posting€notices€in€conspicuous€places€in€the€respondent's€place€of€business€in€theĻform€prescribed€by€the€commission€and€inclusion€of€such€notices€in€advertising€material;Ģą8 ąą ą(7)€Payment€to€the€complainant€of€damages€for€an€injury,€including€humiliation€andĻembarrassment,€caused€by€the€discriminatory€practice,€and€cost,€including€a€reasonable€attorney'sĻfee;Ģą8 ąą ą(8)€Such€other€remedies€as€shall€be€necessary€and€proper€to€eliminate€all€theĻdiscrimination€identified€by€the€evidence€submitted€at€the€hearing€or€in€the€record;€€andĢą8 ąą ą(9)€In€cases€involving€discriminatory€housing€practices€only,€payment€by€the€respondentĻof€a€civil€penalty:Ģą8 ąą ą(A)€In€an€amount€not€exceeding€ten€thousand€dollars€($10,000)€if€the€respondent€has€notĻbeen€adjudged€to€have€committed€any€prior€unlawful€discriminatory€housing€practices;Ģą8 ąą ą(B)€In€an€amount€not€exceeding€twenty„five€thousand€dollars€($25,000)€if€the€respondentĻhas€been€adjudged€to€have€committed€one€(1)€other€unlawful€discriminatory€housing€practice€duringĻthe€five„year€period€ending€on€the€date€of€the€filing€of€the€complaint;€€orĢą8 ąą ą(C)€In€an€amount€not€exceeding€fifty€thousand€dollars€($50,000)€if€the€respondent€hasĻbeen€adjudged€to€have€committed€two€(2)€or€more€unlawful€discriminatory€housing€practices€duringĻthe€seven„year€period€ending€on€the€date€of€the€filing€of€the€complaint.Ģą8 ąIf€the€acts€constituting€the€discriminatory€housing€practice€that€is€the€object€of€the€complaint€areĻcommitted€by€the€same€natural€person€who€has€been€previously€adjudged€to€have€committed€actsĻconstituting€an€unlawful€discriminatory€housing€practice,€then€the€civil€penalties€set€forth€inĻsubdivisions€(a)(9)(B)€and€(C)€may€be€imposed€without€regard€to€the€period€of€time€within€whichĻany€subsequent€discriminatory€housing€practice€occurred.Ģą8 ąą ą(b)€The€commission€may€publish,€or€cause€to€be€published,€the€names€of€persons€whoĻhave€been€determined€to€have€engaged€in€a€discriminatory€practice.Ģ 5Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€,ŌŌ€,¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŻ ƒR$Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€,ōŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌWe€note€that,€although€the€basic€ņņņ ņMcDonnell€Douglasóóó ó€frameworkņņņ ņ€ó óóóapplies€to€the€case€at€bar,€in€theĻcontext€of€a€suit€alleging€failure€to€promote€based€upon€age€discrimination,€a€plaintiff€would€have€to€show€that€theĻemployee€who€received€the€promotion€was€younger€than€the€plaintiff.Ģ ‚Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€,ŌŌ€,¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŻ ƒR$Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€,ōŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌPlaintiff€Bruce€claims€NES€covered€up€an€incident€involving€an€alcohol„related€accident€by€one€of€theĻindividuals€who€received€a€promotion.€€However,€other€than€Mr.€Bruceššs€allegation€in€his€deposition€testimony€andĻMr.€Spearššs€testimony€that€he€had€heard€about€the€incident€as€š šhearsayšš,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€in€anyĻform€to€back€up€Mr.€Bruceššs€claims.ĢPtPtHHŲ(’į’āłFG(üHHŲ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆŠ ŠŠHHŠŠ  ŠŠ2ŠŠ’’øę$’ŠŠHHŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ  ŠŠ ŠŠ ŠŃŃŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŃ € ŃŃ<Px–ČŃŅŅŅ443!#4ŅŅ$ *$ŅŅ$*$ŅŅ ’KK ŅŅ  Geneva ŅŅ  Geneva ŅÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŅ  Serv Geneva ŅŅ  Serv Geneva Ņ(|G2Ū$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€T »»dXXdģ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōļÕņ»»Ō d("’’$££Ņ  ŅŅ  ŅVVVV'’’dxd)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_X`YEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 N$¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€T »»dXXdģ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ!ŻŌ . ŌŌ€,ŌŌ€,¼ŌŃ#€--¼d#ŃŃ#€--¼d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŃ  ŃŌ_ŌŃ8€ QXXdģ»»d8ŃŃ  Ńą@ ąŌ€,īŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEĢą@ ąAT€NASHVILLEŌ€,¼ŌĢÓ  ÓJuly€11,€2001€SessionĢŌ€,XŌĢņ ņŌ€,¼ŌJERRY€MOORE,€ņņet€al.óó€v.€NASHVILLE€ELECTRIC€POWER€BOARDĻ(NES)Ō€,XŌó óĢĢą@ ąņ ņA€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyĢą@ ąNo.€99„1042„I€€€€€€The€Honorable€Irvin€H.€Kilcrease,€Jr.,€ChancellorĢĢĢą@ ąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßĢĢą@ ąNo.€M2000„03186„Ō_ŌCOAŌ_Ō„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€2,€Ō_Ō2001Ō_ŌĢĢßA€V) °°` dE<` AßĢó óĢÓ  Óą ąThree€civil€service€employees€sued€Nashville€Electric€Service€and€the€individual€members€ofĻthe€civil€service€board€primarily€for€violation€of€the€age€provision€of€the€Tennessee€Human€RightsĻAct€resulting€in€their€denial€of€promotions.€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€to€defendant,Ļand€plaintiffs€appeal.€€We€affirm.ĢĢÓ  ÓĢņ ņTenn.R.App.P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óĢĢÓ  ÓņņW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óóĻand€ņņAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€joined.ĢĢThomas€E.€Stewart;€Thurman€T.€McLean,€Jr.,€Madison,€For€Appellants€Jerry€Moore,€John€Bruce,Ļand€Charlie€SpearsĢĢParks€T.€Chastain,€Nashville,€For€AppelleesĢÓ  ÓĢņ ņOPINIONó óĢĢÓ  ÓŃ8€ QXdģXXdģ8Ńą ąPlaintiffs,€Jerry€Moore,€John€Bruce,€and€Charlie€Spears€(collectively€š šPlaintiffsšš)€sued€theĻdefendants,€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County,€acting€by€and€throughĻthe€Nashville€Electric€Service€Power€Board€(š šNESšš),€and€Charles€Cook,€Sam€Howard,€TomĻJackson,€Betty€Nixon,€and€William€McDonald,€individually,€and€as€members€of€the€NationalĻElectric€Service€(NES)€Civil€Service€and€Pension€Board,€and€Matthew€P.€Cordero,€JimmyĻDarylripple,€Don€Kohanski,€Kate€Tallmadge,€and€Gary€Murray,€individually,€for€violation€of€theĻTennessee€Human€Rights€Act,€T.C.A.€Ō€/ŌššŌ€,Ō€4„21„101€et€seq.,€by€discriminating€against€them€becauseĻof€their€age€and€thereby€denying€them€promotions.Ģą ąPlaintiffs€had€been€employees€of€Defendant€Nashville€Electric€Service€Power€BoardĻ(š šNESšš)€for€approximately€35,€33,€and€35€years,€respectively,€at€the€time€this€action€was€filed.× ƒ0 ××  ׀€InĶthese€actions,€consolidated€on€appeal× ƒ1 ××  ×,€Plaintiffs€allege€that€NES€discriminated€against€themĻbecause€of€their€age.€€As€NES€employees,€Plaintiffs€are€subject€to€the€civil€service€rules€regardingĻpromotions€and€suspensions.ĢĢą ąNES€is€governed€entirely€by€the€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€Charter€(the€š šCharteršš)Ļwhich,€in€turn,€created€the€Electric€Employees€Civil€Service€and€Pension€Board€(the€š šBoardšš).€€TheĻCharter€gives€the€Board€the€authority€to€promulgate€rules€relating€to€NES€employees,€includingĻrules€regarding€discharge,€compensation,€and€promotion.€€Under€a€revised€certification€process,€theĻBoard€rates€NES€employees€by€seniority€and€service,€allocating€š špointsšš€based€upon€certainĻcriteria,€with€a€maximum€of€81€points€available.€€Under€the€service€rating€system,€employees€canĻobtain€points€based€upon€their€performance€evaluations,€with€a€maximum€of€30€points€awarded€forĻš šoutstandingšš€performance€(a€score€of€0€points€is€given€for€š šmarginalšš€or€š šunacceptableššĻperformance).€€In€addition,€employees€earn€1€point€per€year€of€employment€for€seniority,€up€to€aĻmaximum€of€30€points.€€An€employee€may€also€earn€up€to€a€total€of€21€points€for€additional€relatedĻexperience,€education,€training,€licenses€and€a€good€safety€record.ĢĢą ąFrom€the€record,€it€appears€the€point€system€is€used€to€rank€employees€who€wish€to€beĻconsidered€for€promotions.€€Depending€upon€the€number€of€employees€eligible€for€a€particularĻpromotion,€the€Secretary€of€the€Board€submits€between€3€and€10€names€for€promotionĻconsideration.€€After€the€Secretary€submits€the€names,€the€supervisor€making€the€final€decision€as€toĻpromotion€takes€into€consideration€the€employeeššs€ranking€on€the€list,€as€well€as€the€employeeššsĻpersonnel€record.ĢĢą ąOn€April€12,€1999,€Mr.€Moore€filed€a€complaint€against€defendants,€alleging,€ņņņ ņinter€aliaóóó ó,Ļhostile€work€environment,€age€discrimination,€retaliation,€harassment,€and€denial€of€due€process€andĻemployment€property€rights.€€Specifically,€Mr.€Moore€alleges€that€he€was€passed€over€forĻpromotion€three€times:€in€March€of€1995,€in€July€of€1998,€and€in€February€of€1999.€€Mr.€MooreĻalso€alleges€that€he€was€wrongfully€suspended€in€September€of€1998.ĢĢą ąOn€February€7,€2000,€Defendants€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€on€all€claims€Mr.ĻMoore€made€in€his€Complaint.€€In€its€Order€Granting€Defendantššs€Motion€for€Summary€JudgmentĻand€Denying€Plaintiffššs€Motion€for€Partial€Summary€Judgment€dated€October€30,€2000,€the€trialĻcourt€found€that€Mr.€Moore€had€failed€to€exhaust€his€administrative€remedies€prior€to€seekingĻjudicial€relief€and€that€defendants€were€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€š šon€all€issues€raisedĻby€the€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.šš€€Mr.€Moore€appeals€from€this€Order.ĢĢą ąSimilarly,€on€August€17,€1999,€Plaintiffs€Bruce€and€Spears€filed€a€separate€action€againstĻDefendants,€also€alleging€hostile€work€environment,€age€discrimination,€retaliation,€harassment,€andĻdenial€of€due€process€and€employment€property€rights.€€Although€the€Bruce/Spears€Complaint€isĻunclear€on€this€point,€it€appears€both€Mr.€Bruce€and€Mr.€Spears€allege€they€were€wrongfully€passedĻover€for€the€same€promotions€four€times:€in€October€of€1998;€in€December€of€1998;€in€January€ofĻ1999;€and€in€May€of€1999.× ƒ2 ××  ׀€In€light€of€the€trial€courtššs€ruling€in€the€Moore€matter,€the€partiesĶagreed€to€waive€oral€argument€on€Defendantsšš€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€and€PlaintiffsššĻMotion€for€Partial€Summary€Judgment,€and€allowed€the€trial€court€to€rule€based€on€the€memorandaĻand€materials€submitted€by€the€parties.€€On€December€7,€2000,€the€trial€court€entered€an€Order,Ļsubstantially€similar€to€that€in€the€Moore€case,€granting€Defendantsšš€Motion€for€SummaryĻJudgment€in€the€Bruce/Spears€case.€€Plaintiffs€Bruce€and€Spears€appeal€from€this€Order.ĢĢą ąThe€issues€on€appeal€are:€(1)€Whether€a€civil€service€employee€must€first€exhaust€hisĻadministrative€remedies€by€following€grievance€procedures€set€out€in€the€civil€service€rules€beforeĻbringing€an€action€under€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act;€(2)€Whether€Plaintiffs€failed€to€proveĻthat€discrimination€was€the€reason€they€did€not€receive€promotions€and,€in€the€case€of€PlaintiffĻMoore,€that€discrimination€was€the€reason€for€his€suspension;€(3)€Whether€Plaintiff€MooreššsĻclaims€dating€from€1995€and€1998€are€barred€by€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations;€(4)WhetherĻindividual€NES€employees€and€Board€Members€affirmatively€aided€and€abetted€discrimination€byĻpreventing€Plaintiffs€from€taking€remedial€action;€and€(5)€Whether€the€NES€violated€Plaintiffsšš€dueĻprocess€rights.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtššs€Orders,€although€for€reasons€different€from€those€uponĻwhich€the€trial€court€relied.ĢĢą ąA€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€when€the€movant€demonstrates€thatĻthere€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€aĻmatter€of€law.€€ņņņ ņSee€ó óóóTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03.€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€theĻburden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€ņ ņņņSee€Bain€v.€Wellsó óóó,€936ĻS.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997).€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€take€theĻstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonableĻinferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€€ņņņ ņSee€id.ó óóó€€In€ņ ņņņByrd€v.€Halló óóó,Ļ847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993),€our€Supreme€Court€stated:ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuine€issueĻof€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€then€demonstrate,€byĻaffidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€factĻdispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€€In€this€regard,€Rule€56.05€provides€that€theĻnonmoving€party€cannot€simply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€but€must€setĻforth€ņņspecific€factsóó€showing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€materialĻfact€for€trial.ą8 ąĢĢņ ņņņId.ó óóó€at€210„11€(citations€omitted).ĢĢą ąSummary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€when€the€facts€and€the€legal€conclusions€drawnĻfrom€the€facts€reasonably€permit€only€one€conclusion.€€ņ ņņņSee€Carvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26Ļ(Tenn.€1995).€€Since€only€questions€of€law€are€involved,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctnessĻregarding€a€trial€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment.€€ņ ņņņSee€Bainó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€622.€€Therefore,€ourĻreview€of€the€trial€courtššs€grant€of€summary€judgment€is€ņ ņņņde€novoó óóó€on€the€record€before€this€Court.€Ļņ ņņņSee€Warren€v.€Estate€of€Kirkó óóó,€954€S.W.2d€722,€723€(Tenn.€1997).ĢĢņņExhaustion€of€RemediesóóĢĢą ąThe€first,€and€threshold€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€an€employeeššs€civil€service€statusĻrequires€him€to€first€exhaust€his€administrative€remedies€under€civil€service€rules€before€bringing€aĻdirect€action€in€chancery€or€circuit€court€under€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€(the€š šTHRAšš).€ĻWe€hold€that€it€does€not.ĢĢą ąThe€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€was€enacted€to€š š[s]afeguard€all€individuals€within€theĻstate€from€discrimination€because€of€race,€creed,€color,€religion,€sex,€age€or€national€origin€inĻconnection€with€employment.šš€€T.C.A.€šš€4„21„101(3)€(1998).€€The€Act€applies€to€all€TennesseeĻemployers,€including€private€employers€with€eight€or€more€employees,€as€well€as€state€and€localĻgovernment€employers.€€ņņņ ņSeeóóó ó€T.C.A.€šš€4„21„102(4).€€The€THRA€forces€individuals€filing€under€theĻAct€to€pursue€either€an€administrative€path€and,€if€they€wish,€seek€judicial€review€of€theĻadministrative€decision,€or€file€a€direct€action€in€circuit€or€chancery€court.€€ņņņ ņSee€óóó óT.C.A.€4„21„307;Ļņņņ ņHoge€v.€Roy€H.€Park€Broadcasting€of€Tenn.,€Inc.óóó ó,€673€S.W.2d€157,€158€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€ĢĢą ąThe€administrative€path€under€the€THRA€involves€review€of€discrimination€claims€by€theĻTennessee€Human€Rights€Commission€(the€š šCommissionšš).€€ņņņ ņSee€ó óóóT.C.A.€šš€4„21„302.€€If€a€THRAĻclaimant€follows€the€administrative€path,€he€or€she€may€only€challenge€the€Commissionššs€decisionĻin€court€after€the€administrative€proceedings€have€been€concluded.€€ņņņ ņSeeóóó ó€T.C.A.€šš€4„21„307(a);Ļņņņ ņPuckett€v.€Tennessee€Eastman€Co.ó óóó,€889€F.2d€1481,€1485€(6th€Cir.€1989).€€The€administrativeĻprocedure€available€under€the€THRA€is€ņņnotóó€the€same€administrative€procedure€Defendants€claimĻPlaintiffs€must€first€exhaust€before€bringing€their€THRA€action.× ƒ3 ××  ×ĢĢą ąIn€this€case,€NES€alleges€that€Plaintiffs€were€bound€to€exhaust€their€administrative€remediesĻunder€civil€service€rules€NES€has€adopted€pursuant€to€the€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€Charter.€ĻWe€disagree.€€While€Plaintiffs€were€clearly€entitled€to€pursue€remedies€under€the€civil€service€rules,Ļthe€THRA€provides€them€with€another,€independent€right€of€redress€for€any€perceived€wrongsĻcommitted€by€Defendants.€€The€Actššs€protection€is€available€to€š šall€individualsšš€within€the€State€ofĻTennessee.€€ņņņ ņSeeóóó ó€T.C.A.€šš€4„21„101(3).€€ĢĢą ąNor€do€we€find€language€of€limitation€in€the€Act€which€would€lead€us€to€believe€civil€serviceĻemployees€should€be€treated€differently€from€other€employees.€€Defendants€have€not€brought€ourĻattention€to€any€such€language,€instead€citing€several€cases€decided€before€the€passage€of€the€THRA,Ļand€an€unpublished€case,€ņņņ ņHaynes€v.€Knoxville€Utilities€Bd.óóó ó,€No.€03A01„9209„CH„362,€1993€WLĻ104639€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992),€in€which€this€Court€held€that€a€civil€service€employee€was€requiredĻto€exhaust€his€remedies€before€seeking€judicial€redress€for€his€employerššs€unfavorable€employmentĻaction.€€ņņņ ņSee€id.€ó óóóat€*1ņņņ ņ.€€óóó óĢĢą ąAlthough,€on€its€face,€the€ņņņ ņHaynesóóó ó€case€appears€to€apply€to€the€case€at€bar,€we€believe€it€isĻboth€easily€and€clearly€distinguishable.€€First,€the€two€civil€service€employees€who€sought€judicialĻrelief€voluntarily€non„suited€their€age„discrimination€claims€and€age„discrimination€was€not€an€issueĻbefore€the€Civil€Service€Merit€Board,€so€the€issue€of€application€of€the€THRA€to€those€claims€wasĻnot€before€this€Court.€€ņņņ ņId.€óóó óat€*3.€€Secondly,€the€ņņņ ņHaynes€óóó ócourt€noted€that€the€remaining€claims,Ļinvolving€due€process€under€the€applicable€civil€service€rules,€were€š špersonnel€issues€that€fallĻsquarely€within€the€plaintiffššs€civil€service€protection.šš€€ņņņ ņId.€óóó ó€The€heart€of€Plaintiffsšš€claims€in€thisĻcase€is€that€the€NES€discriminated€against€them€because€of€their€age.€€Such€discrimination€is€not€anĻissue€which€we€see€as€inherently€within€the€protection€of€the€civil€service.ĢĢą ąAs€to€cases€decided€before€the€passage€of€the€THRA,€we€believe€these€cases€are€no€longerĻapplicable.€€The€list€of€remedies€the€Act€provides€in€T.C.A.€šš€4„21„306€is€extensive.× ƒ4 ××  ׀€This€fullĻmeasure€of€damages€has€been,€and€continues€to€be,€one€of€the€most€important€reasons€courts€haveĻrefused€to€bar€actions€under€the€THRA€when€an€administrative€procedure€and€remedy€wereĻavailable€to€a€plaintiff€alleging€discrimination.€€For€example,€in€ņņņ ņHarmon€v.€Mooreššs€Quality€SnackĻFoods,€Inc.óóó ó,€815€S.W.2d€519€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991),€ņņņ ņappeal€deniedóóó ó€(July€29,€1991),€this€CourtĻheld€that€the€exclusive€remedy€provision€of€the€Tennessee€Workersšš€Compensation€Act€(theĻš šTWCAšš)€did€not€bar€a€THRA€claim€or€any€damages€under€the€Act.€€ņņņ ņSee€id.óóó ó€at€520.€€The€ņņņ ņHarmonóóĻó ócourt€based€its€reasoning€in€part€upon€a€belief€that€the€plaintiffššs€injuries€would€be€more€fullyĻcompensated€under€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act.€€ņņņ ņSee€id.óóó ó€at€521€(noting€that€back€pay€wasĶlimited€to€two„thirds€of€the€employeeššs€wages€under€the€TWCA,€whereas€the€THRA€provided€theĻemployee€with€a€full€measure€of€back€pay).€€Similarly,€in€1999,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€notedĻthat€the€THRA€was€designed€to€provide€victims€of€discrimination€with€a€š šfull€recovery.šš€Ļņņņ ņAnderson€v.€Save„A„Lot,€Ltd.óóó ó,€989€S.W.€2d€277,€289,€n.10€(Tenn.€1999).€€While€the€full€extent€ofĻPlaintiffsšš€remedies€available€under€the€civil€service€rules€is€unclear€on€this€record,€when€viewed€inĻthe€light€most€favorable€to€Plaintiffs,€we€cannot€say€the€civil€service€remedies€are€more€extensive€orĻeven€coextensive€with€those€provided€in€the€THRA.€€ĢĢą ąFor€these€reasons,€we€hold€that€a€civil€service€employee€may€bring€an€action€under€theĻTHRA€without€first€exhausting€his€remedies€under€civil€service€rules.€€Further,€we€hold€that€there€isĻno€requirement€that,€once€an€employee€has€chosen€to€institute€administrative€proceedings€under€theĻcivil€service€rules,€he€must€see€those€proceedings€through€to€their€conclusion€before€bringing€anĻaction€under€the€THRA.ĢĢņņFailure€to€Promote€ClaimsóóĢĢą ąThis€Court€has€construed€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€under€the€framework€of€theĻfederal€statutes€upon€which€it€was€patterned,€such€as€the€Age€Discrimination€in€Employment€ActĻ(š šADEAšš).€€ņņņ ņSee€Bruce€v.€Western€Auto€Supply€Co.óóó ó,€€669€S.W.2d€95,€97€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€ĻUnder€the€ADEA,€as€well€as€other€federal€anti„discrimination€statutes,€a€plaintiff€may€assert€claimsĻof€š šdisparate€treatmentšš€or€š šdisparate€impactšš€discrimination.€€ņņņ ņSee€ó óóó45C€Am.€Jur.€2d€ņņJobĻDiscrimination€ó󚚀2703€(1993).€€A€š šdisparate€treatmentšš€case€involves€an€employer€who€treatsĻindividuals€from€a€protected€group€differently€and€less„favorably€than€other€individuals.€€ņņņ ņSee€id.ó óóó€€AĻš šdisparate€impactšš€case€is€one€in€which€a€facially„neutral€employment€policy,€such€as€an€applicantĻtesting€procedure€or€height€and€weight€requirement,€has€the€effect€of€treating€individuals€in€theĻprotected€class€less€favorably.€€ņņņ ņSee€id.óóó ó€€ĢĢą ąA€disparate€impact€action€alleging€age€discrimination€is€generally€established€by:Ļ(1)alleging€systemic€discrimination;€and€(2)€presenting€statistical€evidence€of€discrimination.€€ņņņ ņSeeĻid.ó óóó€€In€response€to€such€evidence,€the€employer€may€directly€challenge€the€plaintiffššs€profferedĻstatistical€evidence,€or€demonstrate€that€the€employment€policy€being€challenged€arises€out€of€aĻš šbusiness€necessity.šš€€ņņņ ņSee€id.óóó ó€€No€showing€of€discriminatory€motivation€is€required€for€purposesĻof€disparate€impact€theory.€€ņņņ ņSee€id.óóó óĢĢą ąA€disparate€treatment€claim,€on€the€other€hand,€does€require€a€showing€of€intent€toĻdiscriminate.€€ņņņ ņSee€id.óóó ó€€Recognizing€that€direct€evidence€of€discriminatory€animus€is€often€hard€toĻproduce,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€adopted€a€four„part,€burden„shifting€analysis€inĻņņņ ņMcDonnell€Douglas€Corp.€v.€Greenó óóó,€411€U.S.€792€(1973),€which€allows€a€discrimination€plaintiffĻto€prove€motivation€with€indirect€or€circumstantial€evidence.€€Although€ņņņ ņMcDonnell€Douglasóóó ó€dealtĻwith€race€discrimination,€in€a€case€involving€both€the€THRA€and€ADEA,€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€ofĻAppeals€applied€the€same€analysis€to€age€discrimination€claims× ƒ5 ××  ×:ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąą ąIn€evaluating€age„discrimination€claims,€this€court€applies€theĻfour„step€"McDonnell€Douglas€Test."€€Under€this€test,€to€establish€aĻprima€facie€case€of€age€discrimination,€the€plaintiff€bears€the€initialĻburden€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that:€(1)€he€wasĶat€least€40€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€discrimination€("aĻmember€of€a€protected€class");€(2)€he€was€subjected€to€adverseĻemployment€action;€(3)€he€was€qualified€for€the€position;€and€(4)€heĻwas€replaced€by€a€younger€person.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąą ąOnce€the€plaintiff€proves€his€prima€facie€case,€the€burdenĻshifts€to€the€employer€to€"articulate€some€legitimate€non„Ļdiscriminatory€reason€for€the€employee's€discharge."€.€.€.€If€theĻemployer€meets€the€burden€of€articulation,€then€the€burden€shiftsĻback€to€the€plaintiff€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€thatĻthe€reason€proffered€by€the€employer€was€not€its€true€reason€butĻmerely€a€pretext€for€discrimination.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąą ąA€plaintiff€can€prove€pretext€"by€showing€that€the€Company'sĻreasons€have€no€basis€in€fact,€or€if€they€have€a€basis€in€fact,€byĻshowing€that€they€were€not€really€factors€motivating€the€discharge,€or,Ļif€they€were€factors,€by€showing€that€they€were€jointly€insufficient€toĻmotivate€the€discharge."ĢĢņņņ ņCooley€v.€Carmike€Cinemas,€Inc.óóó ó,€25€F.3d€1325,€29„30€(6th€Cir.€1994)€(citations€omitted).€ĻContrary€to€defendantsšš€assertions€in€this€case,€an€ADEA€plaintiff€is€not€required€to€show€that€theĻindividual€promoted€was€someone€ņņoutsideóó€the€protected€class€(i.e.,€less€than€40€years€of€age),€butĻonly€that€the€individual€was€ņņyoungeróó€than€the€plaintiff.€€ņņņ ņSee€id.óóó óĢĢą ąAlthough€a€plaintiff€may€assert€a€claim€under€either€disparate€treatment,€disparate€impact,€orĻboth€theories€of€discrimination,€courts€have€held€that€it€is€unfair€to€allow€a€plaintiff€to€present€a€newĻtheory€on€appeal.€ņņņ ņSee€óóó ó45C€Am.€Jur.€2d€ņņJob€Discriminationó󀚚€2704.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€PlaintiffsššĻdo€not€indicate€upon€which€theory€they€rely.€€However,€given€the€Plaintiffsšš€and€DefendantsššĻreliance€on€the€ņņņ ņMcDonnell€Douglasó óóó€framework€cited€above,€we€must€assume€they€are€allegingĻdisparate€treatment€based€upon€age.€€It€is€under€this€framework€that€defendants€have€responded€toĻPlaintiffsšš€allegations,€and€it€is€under€this€framework€that€we€analyze€each€of€Plaintiffsšš€claims€ofĻdiscrimination.ĢĢą ąIn€his€appellate€brief,€counsel€for€Mr.€Moore€argues€that€š šthe€contention€of€the€AppelleesĻthat€there€exists€in€the€record€legitimate€non€discriminatory€reasons€for€the€adverse€job€actions€.€.€.Ļis€an€issue€of€a€material€fact€which€is€not€appropriate€for€summary€judgment.šš€€We€take€this€toĻmean€that€when€Defendants€rebutted€Plaintiffsšš€prima€facie€cases€of€discrimination€under€theņņņ ņĻMcDonnell€Douglasó óóó€test€cited€above,€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€was€created€which€wouldĻpreclude€summary€judgment€in€this€case.€€This€is€a€misinterpretation€of€the€ņņņ ņMcDonnell€Douglasó óóóĻburden„shifting€analysis.ĢĢą ąIn€order€to€survive€summary€judgment€under€the€ņņņ ņMcDonnell€Douglasóóó ó€analysis,€a€plaintiffĻmust€offer€some€evidence€to€prove€that€the€employerššs€legitimate,€non„discriminatory€reasons€areĻpretext€for€discrimination.€€ņņņ ņSee€Cooleyóóó ó,€25€F.3d€at€30.€€In€a€case€applying€the€ņņņ ņMcDonnell€Douglasóóó óĻtest€to€both€race€and€age€discrimination€claims,€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€wrote:ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąIt€is€now€quite€well„established€that,€in€order€to€withstand€a€motionĻfor€summary€judgment,€the€party€opposing€the€motion€must€presentĻš šaffirmative€evidencešš€to€support€his/her€position:€€a€mere€š šscintillaĻof€evidencešš€is€insufficient.€€ņņņ ņAnderson€v.€Liberty€Lobbyóóó ó,€[477€U.S.Ķ242,€247„48€(1986)];€ņņņ ņStreet€v.€J.C.€Bradford€&€Co.óóó ó,€[886€F.2dĻ1472,€1479€(6th€Cir.€1989)].ĢĢņņņ ņMitchell€v.€Toledo€Hosp.ó óóó,€964€F.2d€577,€584€(6th€Cir.€1992).€€ĢĢņņMr.€Mooreššs€ClaimsóóĢą ąRegarding€Mr.€Mooreššs€1995€failure€to€promote€incident,€NES€has€offered€evidence€in€theĻform€of€an€affidavit€by€Gary€Murray,€a€supervisor€in€the€department€in€which€Mr.€Moore€works.€ĻMr.€Murray€indicates€that€Mr.€Moore€was€rated€number€7€of€18€applicants€for€the€job€in€question,Ļbut€that€the€job€was€given€to€the€number€one€candidate€on€the€list.€€ĢĢą ąTo€rebut€NESššs€proffered,€non„discriminatory€reason€for€failing€to€promote€him,€Mr.ĻMoore€has€offered€his€own€deposition€testimony€and€a€copy€of€the€administrative€law€judgeššsĻFindings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€law€in€ņņņ ņMcLaurine€v.€Nashville€Electric€Serviceó óóó,€Case€No.Ļ97G„6„93„15„M,€Docket€No.€97„002€(January€6,€1998),€a€case€heard€before€the€ElectricĻEmployeesšš€Civil€Service€and€Pension€Board.€€Judge€Russellššs€findings,€dated€January€6,€1998,Ļindicate€that€the€old€NES€policy€regarding€promotions€failed€to€give€adequate€weight€to€seniority.€ĢĢą ąThis€evidence€is€insufficient€to€rebut€NESšš€non„discriminatory€explanation€for€severalĻreasons.€€First,€although€Mr.€Moore€testified€that€he€failed€to€receive€the€1995€promotion€becauseĻhe€had€filed€numerous€grievances€on€the€part€of€NES€employees,€none€of€the€grievances€hadĻanything€to€do€with€age€or€any€other€type€of€discrimination.€€As€we€note€below€regarding€theĻPlaintiffsšš€general€claims€of€retaliation,€only€certain€retaliatory€conduct€violates€the€THRA.€€FilingĻgrievances€which€fall€within€the€category€of€general€employment€issues€is€not€protected€conductĻunder€the€Act.ĢĢą ąSecondly,€the€administrative€law€judge€did€not€make€a€finding€of€discrimination,€but€ratherĻdetermined€that€the€Charter€required€š šservice€ratings€and€seniorityšš€to€constitute€the€š šprincipalĻfactorsšš€in€employment€decisions€under€the€civil€service€rules.€€The€judge€found€that€the€policy€inĻeffect€at€that€time€did€not€comply€with€the€Charterššs€š šprincipal€factorsšš€requirement.€€While€theĻjudgeššs€findings€might€be€relevant€for€purposes€of€a€disparate€impact€claim,€under€disparateĻtreatment€theory,€Mr.€Moore€would€still€need€to€show€causation:€€that,€but€for€the€discriminatoryĻpolicy,€he€would€have€been€higher€up€on€the€list€of€candidates€and€would€have€received€theĻpromotion.ņ ņ€€ņņSeeóóó ó€ņņņ ņgenerally€Reed€v.€Alamo€Rent„a„car,€Inc.ó óóó,€4€S.W.3d€677,€684„85€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ļ1999)€(requiring€proof€of€causation€in€action€for€retaliation€discharge).€€ņņņ ņSee€also€Sasser€v.€AverittĻExpress,€Inc.óóó ó,€839€S.W.2d€422,€426€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)€.€€He€has€presented€no€evidence€to€thisĻeffect.€€For€these€reasons,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€of€material€factĻas€to€the€1995€failure€to€promote€incident.ĢĢą ąSimilarly,€the€trial€court€properly€dismissed€Mr.€Mooreššs€1998€failure€to€promote€claim.€ĻUnder€the€new€evaluation€policy€the€NES€instituted€after€ņņņ ņMcLaurineó óóó,€NES€ranked€Mr.€MooreĻnumber€1€on€the€list€of€four€candidates€for€promotion€to€Meter€Service€Foreman.€€NES€presentedĻevidence€indicating€that€Mr.€Moore€did€not€get€the€promotion€because€he€had€been€reprimanded€inĻ1997€for€violating€the€š šmutual€respect€policyšš,€had€a€long€history€of€abusing€sick€days,€had€beenĻcounseled€several€times€regarding€his€performance€and€the€need€for€him€to€improve€his€quantity€ofĻacceptable€work,€and€that€he€had€been€counseled€regarding€his€need€for€improvement€in€the€area€ofĻdependability.€€ĢĢą ąIn€response,€Mr.€Moore€testified€in€deposition€that€the€candidate€who€received€theĻpromotion,€Steve€Tucker,€should€not€have€been€promoted€because€he€was€younger,€worked€inĻanother€division,€and€did€not€š šknow€how€the€field€work€went€on.šš€€Other€than€this€conclusoryĶstatement,€however,€Mr.€Moore€has€presented€no€evidence€that€Mr.€Tucker€was€unqualified€for€theĻjob.€€Neither€has€Mr.€Moore€presented€evidence€to€contradict€NESšš€proffered€reasons€for€denyingĻMr.€Moore€the€promotion.€€Mr.€Moore€also€indicated€that€he€believed€Mr.€Tucker€got€theĻpromotion€because€Mr.€Tuckerššs€father€used€to€work€at€NES,€and€because€Mr.€Tucker€played€onĻthe€company€softball€and€golf€teams.€€While€this€evidence€may,€if€taken€as€true,€show€that€NESĻengaged€in€political€favoritism,€it€is€irrelevant€to€proving€a€case€of€age€discrimination.ĢĢą ąThe€final€failure€to€promote€incident€involving€Mr.€Moore€occurred€in€1999.€€Here,€NESĻhas€presented€evidence€that€Mr.€Moore€was€ranked€third€on€the€promotions€list.€€Mr.€MurrayššsĻaffidavit€indicates€that€Max€Ragsdale,€who€was€ranked€second€on€the€list,€received€the€promotionĻinstead€of€Mr.€Moore.€€In€the€affidavit,€Mr.€Murray€explains€that€Mr.€Mooreššs€September€3,€1998Ļsuspension€for€š šconduct€unbecoming€of€an€NES€employeešš€was€a€major€factor€in€Mr.€MooreššsĻfailure€to€be€promoted.ĢĢą ąMr.€Moore€claims€that,€although€Mr.€Ragsdale€had€30€years€seniority,€Mr.€Moore€had€moreĻthan€30€years€at€that€point€in€time€and,€therefore,€should€have€received€the€promotion€in€question.€ĻHowever,€Mr.€Moore€has€failed€to€show€that€the€few€yearsšš€difference€in€seniority€resulted€in€hisĻfailure€to€win€the€promotion.€€Mr.€Moore€also€claims€the€entire€incident€that€led€to€his€suspensionĻwas€in€retaliation€for€his€filing€a€grievance€against€a€coworker.€€In€spite€of€this€claim,€Mr.€MooreĻhas€presented€no€evidence€other€than€his€own€testimony€to€refute€the€events€which€led€to€hisĻsuspension.ĢĢą ąFor€these€reasons,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€properly€granted€NES€summary€judgment€onĻMr.€Mooreššs€failure€to€promote€claims.ņņĢóóĢņņMr.€Spearsšš€ClaimsĢĢą ąóóIn€response€to€Mr.€Spearsšš€prima€facie€discrimination€case,€NES€has€produced€affidavitsĻfrom€Melvin€Bess€and€Ray€Clark.€€Mr.€Bess,€the€Manager€of€the€Transmission€and€DistributionĻOperations€Department,€interviewed€Mr.€Spears€regarding€the€October€1998,€December€1998,€andĻMay€1999€promotions.€€Mr.€Bess€claims€he€based€his€decision€not€to€give€Mr.€Spears€theĻpromotions€in€question€because€he€š šdid€not€believe€Spears€would€[be]€effective€as€a€member€ofĻmanagement.šš€€Mr.€Bess€also€indicated€that,€from€Mr.€Spearsšš€interviews€for€the€open€positions,€asĻwell€as€Mr.€Spearsšš€references,€he€did€not€believe€Mr.€Spears€would€be€able€to€š šeffectivelyĻcommunicate€management€decisions€to€his€subordinates€in€a€manner€which€would€help€to€gainĻunderstanding€and€acceptance€of€those€decisions.ššĢĢą ąRay€Clarkššs€affidavit€indicates€that,€as€Manager€of€the€Transmission€and€DistributionĻOperations€Department,€he€promoted€employees€from€the€January€1999€and€May€1999€certificationĻlists.€€Although€he,€like€Melvin€Bess,€indicated€he€was€aware€of€Mr.€Spears€š šgoodšš€and€š šveryĻgoodšš€performance€ratings,€he€chose€to€promote€other€employees€instead€of€Mr.€Spears€because€heĻfelt€the€other€employees€were€better€qualified€for€the€positions.€€Specifically,€Mr.€Clark€says€thatĻMr.€Spears€š šfailed€to€follow€NES€guidelines€imposed€on€all€supervisors,€which€require€fairĻevaluations€of€employees,šš€noting€that€Spears€š šinsisted€on€giving€all€crewmembers€ššexcellentššĻperformance€evaluations.šš€€Mr.€Clark€also€indicated€that,€having€seen€Mr.€Spears€superviseĻemployees,€he€did€not€believe€Mr.€Spears€functioned€well€in€a€supervisory€capacity.ĢĢą ąMr.€Spears€has€presented€no€evidence€in€response€to€these€non„discriminatory€reasons.€€He,Ļlike€Mr.€Moore,€has€failed€to€show€how€NESšš€promotion€policy€influenced€NESšš€decision€not€toĻpromote€him€on€the€four€occasions€in€question.€€When€asked€why€he€believed€he€did€not€receive€theĻpromotions,€Mr.€Spears€testified€that€management€told€him€he€wasnššt€a€š šteam€player,šš€that€thereĶwas€an€incident€on€his€record€in€which€his€supervisors€claimed€he€did€not€let€them€know€where€heĻwas,€and€that€his€supervisors€penalized€him€for€rating€the€men€he€supervised€š štoo€highšš€on€theirĻperformance€reviews.€€If€anything,€Mr.€Spearsšš€testimony€bolsters€NESšš€reasoning€for€not€givingĻhim€the€promotions.€€Although€Mr.€Spears€disputes€the€validity€of€his€supervisorsšš€claims,€there€isĻnothing€in€the€record€aside€from€his€deposition€testimony€which€supports€his€version€of€whatĻhappened.€€Given€the€š šaffirmative€evidencešš€standard€required€to€survive€summary€judgment€underĻthe€ņņņ ņMcDonnell€Douglasó óóó€burden„shifting€analysis,€we€have€no€choice€but€to€affirm€the€trial€courtššsĻruling€as€to€Mr.€Spearsšš€discrimination€claims.ņņĢĢMr.€Bruceššs€ClaimsóóĢĢą ąThe€NES€also€presented€affidavits€from€Melvin€Bess€and€Ray€Clark€in€support€of€itsĻposition€that€it€did€not€discriminate€against€Mr.€Bruce€based€upon€age.€€Mr.€Bess€cites€Mr.€BruceššsĻš šbad€attitudešš€during€one€of€the€interviews€he€conducted€as€evidence€of€Mr.€Bruceššs€š šnegativeĻattitude€toward€management.šš€€Mr.€Bess€claims€he€based€his€promotion€decisions€upon€hisĻknowledge€of€the€candidatesšš€supervisory€experience,€or€lack€thereof,€and€upon€the€interviews€andĻreferences€of€the€candidates.€€Mr.€Clark€cited€Mr.€Bruceššs€abuse€of€overtime€and€poor€safety€recordĻas€some€of€the€factors€which€influenced€the€promotion€decisions.ĢĢą ąMr.€Bruce,€like€the€other€Plaintiffs€in€this€case,€presented€no€evidence€other€than€his€ownĻtestimony€to€refute€NESšš€proffered€non„discriminatory€reasons€for€failing€to€promote€him.€€Mr.ĻBruce€mentions€that€one€of€the€candidates€promoted€was€52€or€53€years€old,€but€does€not€indicate,Ļin€testimony€or€by€affidavit,€whether€the€candidate€had€more€or€less€seniority€than€he€at€the€time€ofĻthe€promotion.€€He€alleges€that€NES€wanted€to€thin€out€the€ranks€of€the€older€NES€employees,€butĻwhen€asked€in€his€deposition€if€he€had€any€evidence€of€this€practice,€he€responded€that€he€did€not.€ĻAgain,€given€the€burden€of€proof€required€in€ņņņ ņMcDonnell€Douglasó óóó,ņņ€óówe€must€concur€with€the€trialĻcourtššs€Order€granting€summary€judgment€on€all€Mr.€Bruceššs€claims.ĢĢņņRetaliation€ClaimsóóĢĢą ąMr.€Moore€alleges€in€his€Complaint:ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąą ą8.€€That,€in€general,€the€Plaintiff€was€employed€by€theĻNashville€Electric€Service,€as€Meter€Service€Technician,€and€wasĻwrongfully€harassed,€discriminated€against€because€of€age,€deniedĻequal€protection€under€the€law,€denied€equal€rights,€discriminatedĻagainst€by€age€and€the€seniority€system,€was€subject€to€retaliation,Ļharassment,€a€hostile€work€environment,€and€was€denied€his€dueĻprocess€of€law€in€regard€to€his€employment€š šproperty€rights.ššĢĢÓÓThe€Spears/Bruce€Complaint€contains€substantially€the€same€language.ĢÓÓą ąIt€is€unclear€from€the€above€language€if€Plaintiffsšš€claims€are€for€retaliation€under€theĻTennessee€Human€Rights€Act,€or€for€exercising€their€rights€to€file€grievances€under€the€civil€serviceĻrules.€€However,€since€the€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€on€all€Plaintiffsšš€claims,€we€willĻaddress€the€Plaintiffsšš€general€claims€of€retaliation,€as€well€as€the€suspension€incident€involving€Mr.ĻMoore.ĢĢą ąThe€THRA€provides€that€it€is€a€š šdiscriminatory€practicešš€to:ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąRetaliate€or€discriminate€in€any€manner€against€a€person€becauseĻsuch€person€has€opposed€a€practice€declared€discriminatory€by€thisĻchapter€or€because€such€person€has€made€a€charge,€filed€a€complaint,Ļtestified,€assisted€or€participated€in€any€manner€in€any€investigation,Ļproceeding€or€hearing€ņņņ ņunder€this€chapteró óóó.€.€.ĢĢŌ_ŌT.C.A.Ō_Ō€šš€4„21„301(1)€(emphasis€added).€€Here,€Plaintiffs€have€not€alleged€retaliation€based€uponĻtheir€exercise€of€any€of€the€activities€protected€under€the€Act.€€Mr.€Moore€has€alleged€retaliation€forĻfiling€grievances€which€he€claims€culminated€in€his€suspension€in€1998,€however,€the€grievances€heĻrefers€to€arose€from€work„related€issues€such€as€requiring€employees€to€obtain€special€driverššsĻlicenses€and€general€job€qualifications.€€These€general€grievances€which€are€not€related€toĻdiscrimination€cannot€be€the€basis€of€a€retaliation€claim€under€the€Ō_ŌTHRAŌ_Ō.ĢĢą ąThe€1998€incident€which€resulted€in€Mr.€Mooreššs€suspension€appears€to€have€beenĻtriggered€by€Mr.€Mooreššs€refusal€to€abide€by€his€supervisorššs€request€that€Mr.€Moore€and€hisĻcoworkers€delay€their€dinner€break.€€When€Mr.€Mooreššs€supervisor€chastised€him€for€notĻfollowing€his€instructions€regarding€dinner,€Mr.€Moore€brought€several€š šcounter„grievancesššĻagainst€the€supervisor,€alleging€the€supervisor€slept€on€the€job€and€babysat€his€grandchild€onĻcompany€premises.€€Mr.€Moore€testified€that€he€handed€the€counter„grievances€to€the€supervisor,Ļwho€got€very€angry€and€became€š š[u]nglued.šš€€He€alleges€the€supervisor€threw€the€grievance€papersĻat€him€twice,€which€caused€Mr.€Moore€to€suffer€an€š šanxiety€attack.šš€€Mr.€Moore€testified€that,€š šIĻwas€standing€there€in€front€of€him,€shaking.€€My€arm€was€hurting.€€I€was€holding€my€right€arm.€€IĻdid€have€a€closed€fist€right€here€.€.€.€but€I€never€swung€at€him.šš€€Even€taken€in€the€light€mostĻfavorable€to€Mr.€Moore,€we€find€nothing€in€his€story€which€would€indicate€that€Mr.€Moore€wasĻsuspended€for€exercising€his€rights€under€the€THRA.€€If€anything,€it€appears€that€the€incidentĻinvolved€the€exercise€of€Mr.€Mooreššs€rights€under€civil€service€rules.€€ĢĢą ąTo€the€extent€that€any€of€Plaintiffsšš€claims€are€based€upon€retaliation€for€the€exercise€ofĻtheir€rights€under€the€applicable€civil€service€rules,€those€claims€are€not€properly€before€this€court,Ļsince€they€are€clearly€matters€within€the€particular€expertise€of€the€Civil€Service€and€Pension€Board.€Ļņņņ ņSee€generally€Haynesóóó ó,€No.€03A01„9209„CH„362,€1993€WL€104639,€at€*3.€€For€these€reasons,€weĻhold€Plaintiffsšš€retaliation€claims€were€properly€dismissed.ĢĢą ąIn€sum,€Plaintiffs€have€failed€to€offer€any€š šaffirmative€evidencešš€in€response€to€NESššĻarticulated,€non„discriminatory€reasons€for€the€adverse€job€actions€in€question.€€Other€thanĻunsubstantiated€allegations€of€coverups× ƒ6 ××  ×,€nepotism€and€political€favoritism,€Plaintiffsšš€only€evidenceĻof€age€discrimination€appears€to€be€NESšš€promotion€policy€itself,€which€caps€seniority€at€30€years,Ļor€30€š špoints.šš€€Even€if€we€assume€that€NESšš€policy€is€discriminatory,€we€find€no€evidence€in€theĻrecord€that€Plaintiffs€would€have€received€the€promotions€if€they€had€been€given€points€equal€toĻtheir€actual€years€of€service.€€Plaintiffs€have€presented€no€evidence€comparing€their€performance€andĻseniority€ratings€to€the€employees€who€received€the€promotions€in€question.€€Nor€have€PlaintiffsĻattempted€to€directly€rebut€NESšš€proffered€explanations€as€to€why€Plaintiffs€did€not€get€promoted.€ĻWithout€any€evidence€to€support€their€claims,€we€are€constrained€to€hold€that€none€of€the€PlaintiffsĻhas€carried€his€burden€of€proof€of€discrimination€under€ņņņ ņMcDonnell€Douglasó óóó.ĢņņĢStatute€of€Ō&  ŌLimitationsóóĢĢą ąSince,€as€Ō'  Ōwe€have€discussed€above,€Mr.€Moore€failed€to€prove€discrimination€in€his€1995Ļand€1998€claims,€this€issue€is€pretermitted€on€appeal.ņņĢĢRemaining€ClaimsĢĢą ąóóPlaintiffs€have€alleged€that€individual€board€members€and€supervisors€of€the€NES€are€liableĻfor€aiding€and€abetting€discrimination€which€resulted€in€their€failure€to€be€promoted€and€in€Mr.ĻMooreššs€suspension.€€Since€we€have€held€that€the€trial€court€properly€granted€summary€judgmentĻon€these€claims,€these€allegations€are€without€merit.€€ĢĢą ąPlaintiffs€have€also€alleged€that€the€certification€process€does€not€comply€with€theĻMetropolitan€Nashville,€Davidson€County€Charter.€€As€discussed€above,€since€Plaintiffs€have€notĻbrought€a€claim€of€disparate€treatment€based€upon€the€certification€process,€we€need€not€reach€thisĻclaim.ĢĢą ąFinally,€Plaintiffs€allege€that€NES€violated€their€due€process€rights€under€the€Tennessee€andĻUnited€States€Constitutions.€€As€we€understand€it,€Plaintiffs€are€alleging€violations€of€due€processĻrights€both€in€connection€with€NESšš€failure€to€follow€the€Charterššs€provisions,€as€well€asĻdefendantsšš€failure€to€follow€proper€procedure€before€Mr.€Moore€was€suspended€in€1998.€€To€theĻextent€that€defendants€failed€to€follow€the€Charterššs€provisions€or€failed€afford€Plaintiffs€dueĻprocess€due€under€the€civil€service€rules,€summary€judgment€was€also€properly€granted.€€In€order€toĻpursue€such€claims,€Plaintiffs€would€have€been€required€to€proceed€under€the€Charter€and€theĻapplicable€civil€service€rules.€€Only€after€they€exhausted€the€remedies€available€to€them€under€theĻrules€and€the€Charter€would€they€be€able€to€seek€a€judicial€remedy.ĢĢą ąFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€order€of€the€trial€court€granting€DefendantsĻsummary€judgment€as€to€all€of€Plaintiffsšš€claims.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€suchĻfurther€proceedings€as€necessary.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€Appellants,€PlaintiffsĻJerry€Moore,€John€Bruce,€and€Charlie€Spears.ĢĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą__________________________________________Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,ĻW.S.