WPC#( ~翆⪗An+8r#*|~a}ܠ$O$Va@WƵ/+†_έJZqP$HHՈsPSÃb>~q#'å0v2Q$+BpDmF 1J+Ǿ}A +^ uD2si.+FѸ8A!-8)5A.SR7ENPv -Zy{-we0lPm~dx0ѰBXZfuBk Ɓ3q]EC_eoWM : $qB1h+ cH;aH}LӦzcFÍHi܂b3p i -y3XVݸ=n*rkv==3!n&=G{yƨ9DPwpFpXRp5RK;a Ԛy ?p@b#\ % ^ # 0/ U#N w 4 z  i x mz U>   [ !UNN5UN7 1uE 72..CCCCCCCCCC 06K 03 00 0- 0* 0'; 0$b 0! 0b 1e 0D2 v@^!! 0 # # # # B $ $ 0($ D3$ D-$ 0K,%,% ASw%% 0& 0D4' Ax'HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0jK-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,-bk1( C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU\  `&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)    <f+i :Outline001_1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <c+i :Outline001_2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <`+i :Outline001_3 j  ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <]+i :Outline001_4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <Z+i :Outline001_5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <W+i :Outline001_6 j  #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <T+i :Outline001_7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <Q+i :Outline001_8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <N+i :Outline001_9 j   x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j - -$%&'()*+ 35;AGMSY_21)a)i.1.a.i.1.a.(#$  0    Rz $      2     _Illegalactivitiesaredefinedas:    activitieswhichareinviolationofthecriminalorcivilcodeofthisstateor  theUnitedStatesoranyregulationintendedtoprotectthepublichealth,safetyorwelfare.Tenn.CodeAnn.501 t 304(c)(1999). 8 #   䕥# 6 Rz $      1     _Mr.MoorecharacterizesthejudgmentofthetrialcourtasadismissalpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6).  Averittcharacterizesthejudgmentasarule56awardofsummaryjudgment.Thetrialcourtcharacterizesitsjudgment t asgrantingAverittsmotiontoreconsiderorvacatethecourtspreviousdismissalofAverittsmotiontodismiss,and 8 ordersMr.Mooresclaimdismissed.Sincethefactsinthiscaseareundisputed,andsincethejudgmentofthetrialcourt L andtheissuesforreviewhererestentirelyonissuesoflaw,ourreviewofthecourtsjudgmentonthisissueisdenovo  withnopresumptionofcorrectnessineithercase.Uponreviewoftheproceduralhistoryandthecourtsorder,weare  satisfiedthatthecourtgrantedAverittsmotiontodismissandreviewthecauseaccordingly. T Rz $      3     _Aretaliatorydischargeactionmaybemaintainedwhereanatwillemployeeisdischargedforreportingwhat  heingoodfaithbelievesisillegalactivity. Mason ,942S.W.2dat472.(|G2z $ !.8Wdd8         0  m d(|3$ !.8Wdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Wdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ddd8     _  D8XXdd8  P@ HlDINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#DHl#Ԉ &   August6,2002Session L XXD #DXX#RONALDG.MOOREv._AVERITT_ԀEXPRESS,INC.,etal.XXD  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.00C2626ThomasW.Brothers,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200102502_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober11,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }      XXXXPlaintiffwasaformerstateemployeeandnewlyhiredemployeeof_Averitt_Ԁwhenhewasterminated x  by_Averitt_Ԁduetostatementshemadeallegingillegalconductofstateofficials.Plaintiffmadethe d statementstothepresspriortobeinghiredby_Averitt_.Plaintifffiledsuitallegingstatutoryand P commonlawretaliatorydischarge.Thetrialcourtdismissedtheaction.Weaffirm. <  #XXX X##DXX#XXDTenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;and d Remanded  P   #DX#XX.DDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE._Highers_andHollyK. ( _Lillard_,_J.J._,joined.  ClintW.Watkins,Brentwood,Tennessee,fortheappellant,RonaldG.Moore.  C.EricStevensandJamesP.Daniel,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,_Averitt_ԀExpress,Inc. t and_Averitt_ԀAirCharter,Inc. ` R OPINION #DXX#XXD 8!  #DXX: #  XXD XXXX   ThefactsasrecitedinMr.Moorescomplaintandrelevanttoourreviewofthiscauseof #`" actionareundisputed.PlaintiffRonaldMooreisaretiredAirForceColonelwhoworkedasapilot #L# fortheStateofTennesseefromAprilof1999untilheresignedinOctoberof1999.OnJanuary12, $8 $ 2000,Mr.MooregaveatapedinterviewtoChannel2Newsinwhichheallegedthatstateofficials %$!% wereusingstateaircraftforpersonaluse.TheinterviewairedonFebruary16and17,2000,aspart &"& ofareportongovernmentspending. '"'   DuringJanuaryof2000,Mr.Moorealsocompletedtheapplicationandinterviewprocessfor )$) apositionasapilotwith_Averitt_ԀExpress,Inc.and_Averitt_ԀAirCharter,Inc.( _Averitt_).OnJanuary p*%* 17,heacceptedapositionasapilotwith_Averitt_.Mr.Mooresfirstflightfor_Averitt_Ԁwasscheduled \+&+ forFebruary17,thenightthesecondsegmentofthetapedinterviewwastelevised.Thisflightwas H,', canceled.OnFebruary18,_Averitt_ԀterminatedMr.Moore. 4-(- _ԇ  InitsterminationlettertoMr.Moore,Averittraisedconfidentialityconcernsasitsreasons  fortermination.Averittemphasizedthatitsclientsexpectedconfidentialservices,andstatedits  beliefthatMr.Moorestelevisedinterviewwould jeopardizethecompanysrelationshipswithboth  currentandpotentialfutureclients.Averittstated, Youhavepubliclydiscussedwhatourclients t wouldconsidertobeprivatemattersifitpertainedtothem8Clientspreferringprivacywillnot ` wanttoseethattheirpilotwastheonepubliclydiscussingearlierflights. L    Mr.MoorefiledsuitagainstAverittinSeptemberof2000,allegingthatAverittterminated $ t himinviolationofthePublicProtectionActascodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.501304,  ` Tennessees whistleblowerstatute.Mr.Mooreadditionallyassertedacauseofactionforcommon  L  lawretaliatorydischarge.ThetrialcourtfoundthatMr.Moorefailedtomeetthecriteriarequired  8  foreitheracommonlaworstatutoryretaliatorydischargeactionanddismissedthecause.O M#  1      ׀This $  appealfollowed.     IssuesPresented    ?  TheissuespresentedbyMr.MooreforreviewbythisCourtare: l 8  I.8`   DidtheconductofstateofficialsthatMr.Moorereportedtothe D citizenryofTennessee,throughthenewsmedia,constituteafelony 0 underTennesseelaw,thepublicreportingofwhichservedtheinterest l ofthepublic?X` x` x 8  II.0`   Didthetrialcourt[err]bydismissingMr.Moorescommonlawretaliatory 0 dischargeclaim?` `   9$%&'()*+,(038  8`   8 ` x` x(A)DidMooresterminationviolateaclearand  unambiguouspubicpolicyoftheStateofTennessee?   8  8`   8 ` x` x(B)DidthefactthatMr.Moorespublicreportingof h unlawfulactivityoccurredpriortohisbeingemployed T  byAveritt,servetodefeat[his]commonlaw @! retaliatorydischargeclaim?,"|      ?+ ` hp x X?8  III.0`   Didthetrialcourt[err]indismissingMooresretaliatorydischargeclaim $T" underTenn.CodeAnn.501304?$@ #` `  P         Averittraisesthefollowingadditionalissues: t 8  I.0`   Whethertheplaintiffmayrely,forpurposesofthisappeal,onthemere L  allegationsinhisamendedcomplaintwhichwerenotsupportedbeforethe 8  courtbelowincompliancewithrule56.06,TennesseeRulesofCivil $ t Procedure? `` `  8  II.0`   Whetherthetrialcourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgment,dismissing  8  Moorescommonlawretaliatorydischargeclaim.$ ` `  8  III.8`   Whetherthetrialcourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgment,   dismissingMooresretaliatorydischargeclaimunderTenn.Code   Ann.501304. ` x` x   StandardofReview  \ v!  Theissuesraisedbythisappealareissuesoflaw.Ourreviewofissuesoflawisdenovo, 0 withnopresumptionofcorrectnessattachedtothejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Tenn.R.App.P. l 13(d); #XXX X #XXXXBowdenv.Ward ,275S.W.3d913,916(Tenn.2000)#XXXX"# XXXX.#XXX Xh##XXXXArule12.02(6),Tenn.R.Civ.P., X motiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimteststhelegalsufficiencyofthecomplaintitself. Cook D v.SpinnakersofRivergate,Inc., 878S.W.2d934,938(Tenn.1994).Thegroundsforsuchamotion 0 isthattheallegationsofthecomplaint,ifconsideredtrue,arenotsufficienttoconstituteacauseof  actionasamatteroflaw. Id. #XXXX##XXXXԀAmotiontodismissshouldonlybegrantedif itappearsthatthe  plaintiffcanestablishnofactssupportingtheclaimthatwouldwarrantrelief. Doev.Sundquist ,  2S.W.3d919,922(Tenn.1999).Accordingly,nopresumptionofcorrectnessattachestoatrial  courtsrulingonamotiontodismiss. Steinv.DavidsonHotelCo. ,945S.W.2d714,716(Tenn. | 1997).#XXXX%# XXXX h #XXX X'#XXXX  Wheninterpretingalegislativeprovision,thisCourtsprimaryobjectiveistoeffectuatethe @! purposeofthelegislature. Lipscombv.Doe ,32S.W.3d840,844(Tenn.2000).Insofaraspossible, ,"|  theintentofthelegislatureshouldbedeterminedbythenaturalandordinarymeaningofthewords #h! used,andnotbyaconstructionthatisforcedorwhichlimitsorextendsthemeaning. Id. Likewise, $T" theCourtmustseektoascertaintheintendedscope,neitherextendingnorrestrictingthatintended $@ # bythelegislature. Statev.Morrow ,75S.W.3d919,921(Tenn.2002)(citing Statev.Sliger ,846 %,!$ S.W.2d262,263(Tenn.1993)).Ourinterpretationmustnotrenderanypartofalegislativeact &"%  inoperative,superfluous,voidorinsignificant. Id. (citing Tidwellv.Collins ,522S.W.2d674, '#& 67677(Tenn.1975)).Rather,weseektogiveeffecttothelegislaturesoverarchingpurpose. (#'  MerrimackMut.FireIns.Co.v.Batts ,59S.W.3d142,151(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).Insodoing, )$(  wemustinterpretthestatuteinvolvedreasonably,bearinginminditsobjective,theharmit_seeks x*%) toavoid,andthepurposesitseekstopromote. Vossv.ShelterMut.Ins.Co. ,958S.W.2d342,345  (Tenn.Ct.App.1997).#XXXXK(# XXXX     RetaliatoryDischarge  t  /  Tennesseerecognizesbothacommonlawtortandastatutorycauseofactionforretaliatory H  discharge. Guyv.MutualofOmahaIns.Co. ,79S.W.3d528,531(Tenn.2002).Inorderto 4  succeedonacommonlawretaliatorydischargecauseofaction,theclaimantmustdemonstratethat  p hiswhistleblowingactivitywasasubstantialfactorinhistermination. Id. Thecommonlawcause  \ ofactionrequiresproofof(1)anemploymentatwillrelationship;(2)dischargeoftheemployee;  H  (3) thereasonforthedischargewasthattheemployeeattemptedtoexerciseastatutoryor  4  constitutionalright,orforanyotherreasonwhichviolatesaclearpublicpolicyevidencedbyan   unambiguousconstitutional,statutory,orregulatoryprovision. Crewsv._Buckman_ԀLabs._Intl_ ,   78S.W.3d852,862(Tenn.2002).UnderTenn.CodeAnn.501304,Tennessees whistle   blowerstatuteenactedin1990,aclaimantmustprovethathewasdischarged solely forrefusing   toparticipatein,orforrefusingtoremainsilentabout,illegalactivities.N M#  2      ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.501   304(a)(1999). p   Thecurrentcasepresentsasetofuniquefacts.Assuming _arguendo_Ԁ thatMr.Moorewas H dischargedasaresultofthestatementshemadetothepress,andfurtherassumingthatthe 4 statementsconcernedactivitieswhichhebelievedingoodfaithtobeillegal,canacauseofaction  p besustainedwhere:(1)theactivitiesreportedwerenotthoseoftheemployerwhodischargedhim?  \ (2)theactivitieswerenotreportedtoeitherinternalmanagement,alawenforcementagency,ora H regulatoryagency,buttothepress?and(3)theemployeewasnotemployedbytheemployerwho 4 dischargedhimatthetimetheactivitieswerereported?TheTennesseeSupremeCourtappearsto   haveansweredthefirstquestionintheaffirmative,atleastinsofarasthestatutorycauseofaction   isinvoked,remarkinginafootnotein Guy :  8  Nowhereintheplainlanguageofthestatuteisitspecifiedthatthe employer must  havecommittedtheillegalactivitiesaboutwhichtheplaintiffreported.Indeed,to p solimitthescopeofthestatutewouldfrustratethestatutespurposetoprotect \   actionswhichenhancetheenforcementofourlawsorexposeunsafeconditions,or H! otherwiseservesomesingularlypublicpurpose. 4"    Guy ,79S.W.3dat536(emphasisintheoriginal)(quoting Wagnerv.CityofGlobe ,722P.2d250, $X" 257(Ariz.1986)).Astothethirdcircumstance,wenowanswerNo.Asthisresolutionofthisissue $D # is_dispositive_Ԁtothiscase,weleaveconsiderationofthesecondissueforanotherday. %0!$  &"%   Theretaliatorydischargecauseofactionprovidesanexceptiontotheemploymentatwill  doctrine,adoctrinewhichisfirmlyandhistoricallyembeddedinthisstate. Id. at535.An  employeeatwillmaybeterminatedforgoodcause,badcause,orfornocauseatall. Id. ; seealso,  Masonv._Seaton_ , 942S.W.2d470,474(Tenn.1997).In1984,thesupreme_court_Ԁrestrictedthe t applicationoftheemploymentatwilldoctrineinsituationswhereanemployeewasterminatedin ` contraventionofawellestablishedpublicpolicy. Id. (citing _Clanton_Ԁv.CainSloan ,677S.W.2d L  441,44445(Tenn.1984)).In _Chism_Ԁv.MidSouthMillingCo. ,762S.W.2d552,555(Tenn.1988), 8  thecourtrecognizedacauseofactionwhereanatwillemployeewasdischargedforrefusingto ( x remainsilentaboutillegalactivities. Theobjectiveoftheexceptionwas,andremains,tosanction  d employerswhoterminateemployeesinretaliationfortheemployeesrefusaltoassistinthe  P  perpetuationofillegalactivitiesoractivitieswhichcontraveneaclear,certain,unambiguouspublic  <  policyofthisstateas evidencedbyanunambiguousconstitutional,statutoryorregulatory (  provision,whethersuchassistancebebyactiveparticipationorbysilence. Id. 󀀀Thepurposeofthe   causeofactionisto encouragetheemployeetoprotectthepublicinterest. Crewsv._Buckman_   Labs,_Intl_ ,78S.W.3d852,860(Tenn.2002).TennesseeCodeAnnotated501304evidences   thepublicpolicyofthisstatethatatwillemployeesmaynotbedischargedsolelyforreporting   activitieswhichviolatethelaws,regulationsandrulesofthisstateortheUnitedStates. Mason ,942 t S.W.2dat475.Thisexceptiontotheemploymentatwilldoctrineisanarrowone,however,and ` isapplicableonlyin limitedcircumstances,[where]certainwelldefined,unambiguousprinciples L ofpublicpolicyconferuponemployeesimplicitrightswhichmustnotbecircumscribedorchilled 8 bythepotentialoftermination. Steinv.DavidsonHotel ,945S.W.2d714,717(Tenn.1997). $t   Inherentintheunderlyingphilosophyoftheretaliatorydischargecauseofactionisthatat L willemployeesshouldnotbeplacedinthemoral,ethicalandlegaldilemmaofbeingforcedto 8 choosebetweenreportingillegalactivitiesandkeepingtheirjobs. SeeGriggsv.CocaCola $ EmployeesCreditUnion ,909F.Supp.1059,1064(E.D.Tenn.1995); Hendersonv.Corrections  Corp.ofAmerica ,918F.Supp.204,210(E.D.Tenn1996); _Merryman_Ԁv.CentralParking_Sys_. ,  No.01A019203CH00076,1992Tenn.AppLEXIS935at*17(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.13,1992).  Thusthethreatofdismissalmustbecontemporaneouswiththedecisiontoreporttheillegal  activities. Id.;seealso,Crews ,78S.W.3dat860(recognizingthatanemployeemay chooseto p remainsilentaboutanillegalactivity,evenwhenhetherebyviolatesamandatoryethicaldutyto \  reportit,whenfacedwiththepossibilityofdischarge).Suchathreatdoesnotneedtobeexplicitly H! enunciated,andacauseofactionmaybesustainednotwithstandingtheabsenceofanaffirmative 4"  directiveoftheemployertoremainsilentaboutillegalactivities. Mason ,942S.W.2d470,474  #p! (Tenn.1997).  $\"   Mr.Mooreundisputedlywasnotfacedwiththepossibilityofdischargewhenhedecidedto %4!$ reportwhatheallegeswereillegalactivitiesofhisformeremployer.P M#  3      ׀ItisundisputedthatMr. & "% Moorewasnotanemployeeof_Averitt_ԀonJanuary12,2000,whenhereportedhisobservationsto ' #& thepress.Whilewearenotinsensitivetothecloseproximityofeventsinthiscase,andassuming (#'  _arguendo_ thatmakingstatementstothenewsmediamaybeconsideredreportingperceived  illegalities,wedeclinetoextendthisnarrowlycraftedexceptiontotheemploymentatwilldoctrine  toasituationwheretherewasnopotentialofdischargewhenthereportwasmade.Inorderto  maintainanactionforretaliatorydischarge,theplaintiffmustbeintheclassofpeoplethecommon x lawtortandthestatuteweredesignedtoprotect.Hemusthavebeenanatwillemployeefacedwith d thechoiceofreportinganillegality,therebyrunningtheriskofbeingdischargedasaretaliatory P  result,orremainingsilent,therebykeepinghisjobattheexpenseofthepublicinterest. <    Inlightoftheforegoing,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtdismissingthecauseofactionis  d affirmed.Theremainingissuesaretherefore_pretermitted_.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtothe  P  appellant,RonaldG.Moore,andhissurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XXX X.#  <     `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE