WPC T VHڰ- L7y=xL"{ꞑX˔Н拪vn1, H%Ԫ:3ѐsktmѠLG5gJe;QH0=GX/E}ږ K(r_"R hY)zH:zksP; ܁|L` To O%9;_$X1njAٙ8gzlwLыEπ> N{ְoB:vO[Aqk XCz94ețTV'k6N`Oo5n5FT[l0z}nwGX*vGgűZgN:,]FCyT9{!mZ} u"1;]wB 'oW͋ F>F>F> B1?1? 0N? D3? D-%@ 0KR@R@ AS@@ 0A 0DZB ABBBBBBBBB 0IC 0D 0D 0EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 09F 0F 0G 0.H 0H 0I 0wJ 0$K 0K 0lL 0M 0M 0)N 0N 0O 0iP 0Q 0Q 0UR 0R 0SHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0tH-s (`$.8dd8    ,-P|("  Z6Times New Roman Regular C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U R$      14  c  _Tenn.CodeAnn.98307(a)(1).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   R$      15  c  _Tenn.CodeAnn.98307(d),(e). R$      2  c  _ActofMar.22,1999,ch.54,2,1999Tenn.Pub.Acts110,110. R$      16  c  _Tenn.CodeAnn.98307(d).  P.J.CatalanoHodde t]hepretermittedSundquistCatronGarnett SysCommrsOrvisAssnBozemanSoukup Peay HousHewittRinconDiablo RptrTomasic KanHeiskDeptFeltner DatzBrinsonSantengeloCalvertSantangeloRosemanLavinJordonLeCorpsLumbermens CasTidwellWilloughbyMerrimackLimbaughTelecommsBlankenship BainCommrSneedFlemmingRasarKradelGleavesBeareBrewingtonBeelerCommnBargerSanifilldispositiveAverittFayetteGrimsley VandPosnerFortinoFeltonS]tate B.R.Bankr COAServomation R$      1  c  _ActofMar.22,1999,ch.54,1999Tenn.Pub.Acts.110. R$      3  c  _Morrisv.State,No.01S019804BC00076,at2(Order,Tenn.May24,1999). h R$      5  c  _TheStatearguedunsuccessfullybeforetheTennesseeSupremeCourtandarguesagainbeforethisCourtthat  the1999amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.98310couldnotapplytoMs.Morrissclaimbecauseherclaimwasnot, t inthewordsofChapter54,2, pendingoronappealatthetimeofthepassageofthisact.Thisargumentispremised 8 onthenotionthatnoappealcouldhavebeenpendingafterMarch31,1999,whentheTennesseeSupremeCourtdenied L Ms.Morrissfirstpetitionforrehearing.Thisargumentoverlookstwothings:first,Tenn.R.App.P.39(f)whichpermits  thefilingofsuccessivepetitionsforrehearingintheTennesseeSupremeCourtandsecond,Tenn.R.App.P.42(a)which  providesthatTennesseeSupremeCourtmandateswillnotissueuntilelevendaysaftertheentryajudgmentunlessthe H  courtordersotherwise.Byoperationofthesetworules,theTennesseeSupremeCourtsmandatefollowingthedenial  \ ofMs.MorrissfirstpetitionforrehearingcouldnothaveissueduntilApril12,1999.Ms.Morrisfiledhersecond   petitionforrehearingonApril8,1999!wellwithinthe10dayperiodforfilingpetitionsforrehearingprescribedby    Tenn.R.App.P.39(b).Thetimelyfilingofthesecondpetitionforrehearinghadtheeffectofstayingtheissuanceof X   themandateinaccordancewithTenn.R.App.P.42(b).Accordingly,Ms.MorrissappealwasstillpendingonApril  l  7,1999,whentheamendmentbecameeffectiveuponGovernorSundquistssignature.  R$      6  c  _RelyingonGainesv.Catron,thecourtdeclinedtovalidatetheregistrationofadeedbasedonachangeinthe  registrationlawsoccurringafterthetrialcourthadinvalidatedthedeed.Garnettv.Stockton,26Tenn.(7Hum.)84,85 t 86(1846). R$      4  c  _Morrisv.State,No.01S019804BC00076(Tenn.June21,1999).  R$      7  c  _See,e.g.,Bradleyv.SchoolBd.ofRichmond,416U.S.696,711,94S.Ct.2006,2016(1974);OutdoorSys.,  Inc.v.CobbCounty,555S.E.2d689,691(Ga.2001);PremierProp.Mgt.,Inc.v.Chavez,728N.E.2d476,481(Ill. t 2000);UnnamedPhysicianv.CommissiononMed.Discipline,400A.2d396,402n.8(Md.1979);InterstatePower 8 Co.v.NoblesCountyBd.ofCommrs,617N.W.2d566,575(Minn.2000);Rosenbergv.Rosenberg,481N.Y.S.2d617, L 61819(Sup.Ct.1984).  R$      8  c  _See,e.g.,Collinsv.Collins,543S.E.2d672,678n.10(W.Va.2000)(statingthattheprimaryexceptionto  therulerequiringappellatecourtstoapplythelawthatwasineffectatthetimeoftherelevanteventsoccurswhenarule t oflawappliesretroactively).  R$      10  c  _TheGeneralAssemblymaydetermineanActseffectivedate.Tenn.Const.art.II,20.However,an  effectivedateprovisionstatingthatanActbecomeseffectivebeforeitisactuallypassedisanullity.Abillisnotdeemed t enacteduntilalltheactionsrequiredbyTenn.Const.art.II,18haveoccurred.CityofNashvillev.Browning,192 8 Tenn.597,603,241S.W.2d583,58586(1951);Loganv.State,50Tenn.(3Heisk.)442,444(1871).The1999 L amendmentprovidedthatitwouldapplyto allcasesfiledwiththe...CommissiononorafterJuly1,1992,pending  oronappealatthetimeofpassageofthisact...TheGeneralAssemblycompletedactiononthebillonMarch22,  1999,butthebillcouldnottakeeffectuntilApril7,1999,whentheGovernorsignedit.Accordingly,weconstruethe H  1999amendmenttoapplytocasespendingoronappealwhentheamendmentbecameeffective.  R$      9  c  _TheGeneralAssemblycannotenactcurativelegislationtoimpairprivaterightsvestedbyafinaljudgmentby  acourt.Pennsylvaniav.Wheeling&BelmontBridgeCo.,59U.S.(18How.)421,429(1856);Peopleexrel.Leafv. t Orvis,30N.E.2d28,31(Ill.1940).Thisprinciple,however,doesnotforecloselegislativeactionwhenprivaterights 8 arenotinvolved.Hodgesv.Snyder,261U.S.600,603,43S.Ct.435,436(1923);AtlanticCityCasinoAssnv.City L ofAtlanticCity,525A.2d1109,1113(N.J.Super.App.Div.1985).$359=AEIMQ111111111)Hairline d({2z$ !.8͕dXXd8       R$      13  c  _Thelanguageofthe1999amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.98310issoclearthatitobviatesconsulting  legislativehistorytoascertaintheGeneralAssemblyspurpose.However,wehavereviewedthecommitteeandfloor t debatesregardingthe1999amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.98310andits1998predecessor.Atnotimeduringthese 8 discussionsdidalegislatorstatethatthesebillswouldratifythedecisionsmadebytheCommissionwhenitlacked L jurisdiction.  R$      12  c  _Intheamendmentsownterms,theCommissionsexpandedsubjectmatterjurisdictionappliedto allcases  filedwiththe...CommissiononorafterJuly1,1992,pendingoronappeal....ActofMar.22,1999,ch.54,2, t 1999Tenn.Pub.Acts110.- -3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)2i)*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /    q R$      11  c  _Decisionstogrant,withdraw,orrestrictwaiversofsovereignimmunityaremattersoflegislativegrace.Sikes  v.CandlerCounty,274S.E.2d464,466(Ga.1981);Withersv.UniversityofKentucky,939S.W.2d340,344(Ky.1997). t Thus,theGeneralAssemblymay,ifitchooses,appropriatefundstocompensateindividualsfordamagesattributable 8 totheState.Itmayalsoenactlegislationpermittinganindividualordefinedgroupofindividualstofileaclaimorto L  bringsuitagainsttheState.SeeTexasDeptofTransp.v.Jones,8S.W.3d636,638(Tex.1999).Likewise,itmayenact  legislation,asitdidin1984,establishingaprocedureformakingclaimsagainsttheState.TheGeneralAssemblymay t alsobroadenthescopeoftheexistingclaimsproceduretopermitorreviveclaimsagainsttheState,evenclaimsthathave 8 beenreducedtoafinaljudgment.StateDeptofTransp.v.Feltner,266So.2d670,671(Fla.1972);Datzv.Brinson, L 430S.E.2d823,824(Ga.Ct.App.1993);Santangelov.State,601N.Y.S.2d305,309(App.Div.1993).(|G2$ !.8͕dXXd8         0  c d(|3Y$ !.8͕dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Y$ !.8͕dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   !.8͕dd8     _H  ͕8iXXdd8  @ $͕INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#͕$#Ԉ &   July6,1999Session L XiX͕ #͕XXi#DIANAMORRISv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXiX͕  J @@ AppealfromtheTennesseeClaimsCommission  J @@No.012174WilliamBaker,Commissioner  6 @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.M199902714COARMCVFiledOctober8,_2002_   AV) ` dE<` A      ThisappealinvolvesadisputebetweentheStateofTennesseeandaformeremployeeofthe   DepartmentofCorrectionarisingoutofaworkrelatedinjury.AftertheDepartmentdischargedher x  forfailingtoreturntowork,theemployeefiledaretaliatorydischargeclaimwiththeTennessee d ClaimsCommissionassertingthatshehadactuallybeenfiredbecauseshehadfiledaworkers P compensationclaim.TheTennesseeCourtofAppealsdeterminedthattheCommissionlacked < subjectmatterjurisdictionoverretaliatorydischargeclaimsandvacatedtheCommissions$300,000 (x awardtotheemployee.WhiletheemployeesappealwaspendingbeforetheTennesseeSupreme d Court,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyretroactivelybroadenedtheCommissionsjurisdictionto P includeretaliatorydischargeclaims.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtreversedthiscourtsdecision < andremandedthecasetothiscourtforfurtherconsideration.Wehavedeterminedthatthe ( TennesseeGeneralAssemblymayenactretroactivelawswaivingtheStatessovereignimmunity  withregardtopastevents,andweaccedetotheTennesseeSupremeCourtsdecisioninthiscase  thattheGeneralAssemblyvalidatedtheresultsofthisproceeding.Wealsohaveconcludedthatthe  Commissionhadauthoritytoawardfrontpaydamages.Accordingly,weaffirmtheCommissions  award. t  Tenn.R.App.P.12(II)DirectAppellateReview;JudgmentoftheTennesseeClaims L  CommissionAffirmed  8!    #͕Xig#XiX.͕WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH._Cantrell_,P.J.,M.S., #`" andWilliamB.Cain,J.,joined. #L# PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelW.Catalano,andMarkAlexisHudson, %$!% fortheappellant,StateofTennessee. &"& BillHodde,Madison,Tennessee,fortheappellee,DianaMorris. (#(   OPINION #͕XXi #XiX͕ p*%* #͕XXi+#  XiX͕@) I.  H,',   DianaMorrishadworkedasanaccountclerkinthepharmacyattheTennesseeState  .p). PenitentiaryinNashvilleforlessthanoneyearwhenshewasinjuredonthejobonAugust24,1990.  /\*/ _Thewheelsonherdeskchairslidoutfromunderherasshereachedforaformcausinghertostrike  herheadonthecornerofanadjacentdesk.TheresultingclosedheadinjurycausedMs.Morristo  havepostconcussionheadaches,decreasedvisioninherrighteye,andleftherwithoccasional  seizuresthatpreventedherfromworking. t   AccordingtoMs.Morris,sheorherhusbandcalledtheprisonpharmacydailywhileshewas L  unabletowork.HersupervisorwasapparentlyunsympatheticaboutMs.Morrisscircumstances 8  andurgedherto hurryupandgetbacktowork.ShetoldMs.Morristhatherabsencefromwork $ t  lookedbadonthewholedepartmentandonherasMs.Morrisssupervisor.WhenMs.Morris  ` mentionedthepossibilityoffilingaworkerscompensationclaim,hersupervisortoldhernottofile  L  forworkerscompensationandtoputitonherinsuranceinstead.Despitehersupervisorswarning,  8  Ms.MorrissubmittedaworkerscompensationclaimtotheDepartmentinmidSeptember1990. $    OnSeptember25,1990,shortlyaftertheDepartmentreceivedherclaimform,Ms.Morris   receivedaletterfromthewardeninformingherthatshehadexhaustedallhersickandannualleave   andrequestingthatsheprovidehimwithaphysiciansstatementregardingwhenshewouldbeable   toreturntowork.Theletterconcluded: IfyouarenotabletoreturntofulldutybyOctober5,1990, p ouronlyoptionwillbetoseparateyoufromstateservice.Onthedayfollowingthewardensletter, \ Ms.MorrisfiledaworkerscompensationclaimwiththeDivisionofClaimsAdministrationofthe H DepartmentofTreasury. 4   OnOctober10,1990,afterMs.Morrishadnotreturnedtowork,thewardenformally  \ notifiedherthatshehadusedallhersickandannualleaveandthattheDepartmenthad nooption H buttoseparateyoufromstateservice.ThewardenalsoinformedMs.Morristhathertermination 4 wouldnotaffectherpendingworkerscompensationclaimandthattheDepartmentwouldconsider   rehiringherwhenshefullyrecoveredanddesiredtoreturntowork.     TheDivisionofClaimsAdministrationpartiallygrantedMs.Morrissclaimforworkers  compensationbenefitsbutdidnotapproveallhermedicalexpenses.Accordingly,Ms.Morrisfiled  acomplaintwiththeTennesseeClaimsCommissionassertingthatshewasentitledtopastandfuture l medicalpaymentsaswellasdisabilitybenefits.ShealsoallegedthattheDepartmenthaddischarged X  herinretaliationforherseekingworkerscompensationbenefits.SherequestedtheCommission D! toawardhernotonlyfullworkerscompensationbenefitsbutalsocompensatoryandpunitive 0"  damagesonherretaliatorydischargeclaim. #l!   TheCommissionconsideredMs.Morrissclaimsseparately.InDecember1993,it $D # determinedthatMs.Morrishadsustainedaworkrelatedinjurythathadresultedinaninetypercent %0!$ permanentpartialdisability.TheCommissionawardedMs.Morrishermedicalexpensesand360 &"% weeksofdisabilitycompensation.TheCommissionthenturneditsattentiontoMs.Morriss '#& retaliatorydischargeclaim,despitetheStatesargumentthatitlackedsubjectmatterjurisdictionover (#' claimsofthissort.InSeptember1996,theCommissionfoundthatMs.Morrishadbeendischarged )$( inretaliationforfilingherworkerscompensationclaimandawardedher$300,000whichit |*%) characterizedasbackpayand prospectivedamagesforthelossoffutureearnings. h+&*   T,'+   WhiletheStatedidnotcontesttheworkerscompensationaward,itappealedtheadverse   decisiononMs.Morrissretaliatorydischargeclaimtothiscourt.TheStateassertedthatthe  Commissionlackedsubjectmatterjurisdictionoverretaliatorydischargeclaimsandlackedauthority  toawarddamagesforfrontpay.OnOctober3,1997,thiscourtvacatedthe$300,000judgmenton t theretaliatorydischargeclaimafterconcludingthattheCommissionlackedsubjectmatter ` jurisdictionoverretaliatorydischargeclaims.Morrisv.State,No.01A019612BC00569,1997 L  WL607515(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.3,1997).Becauseofourdecisionregardingthejurisdictional 8  issue,wedidnotaddresstheStatessecondissueregardingtheCommissionsauthoritytoaward $ t frontpay.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtgrantedMs.Morrissapplicationforpermissiontoappeal  ` and,onMarch1,1999,issuedanopinionunanimouslyaffirmingthiscourtsdecision.Morrisv.  L  State,986S.W.2d212(Tenn.1999)(withdrawnfrompublicationbycourtorder).Ms.Morrisfiled  8  atimelypetitionforrehearingwhichwasdeniedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourtonMarch31, $  1999.     EvenasMs.MorrisscasewaspendingbeforetheTennesseeSupremeCourt,theTennessee   GeneralAssemblywasconsideringlegislationexpandingtheCommissionsjurisdictiontoinclude   retaliatorydischargeclaimslikehers.OnMarch22,1999,theGeneralAssemblypassedan p amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.98310expresslygivingtheCommissionjurisdictiontoconsider \ retaliatorydischargeclaimsfiledagainststatedepartmentsandagencies. #  1      ׀TheGeneralAssembly H alsostatedspecificallythattheCommissionsnewauthorityextended toallcasesfiledwiththe 4 ClaimsCommissiononorafterJuly1,1992,pendingonappealatthetimeofpassageofthisact.  p ...T #  2      ׀GovernorSundquistsignedthebillonApril7,1999,andittookeffectonthatdate.  \   OnApril8,1999,Ms.MorrisfiledasecondpetitionforrehearingintheTennesseeSupreme 4 CourtassertingthatthefreshlyenactedamendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.98310appliedtoher   claimand,therefore,thatCommissionwasnowendowedwithjurisdictionthatitdidnothavein   1996.OnMay24,1999,adividedTennesseeSupremeCourtissuedanorderconcludingthat,asa  resultofthe1999amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.98310, [t]hecommissiondidhavesubject  matterjurisdictiontodecidetheplaintiffsclaimforretaliatorydischarge. #  3      ׀Accordingly,thecourt  grantedMs.Morrisspetitionforrehearing,withdrewitsMarch1,1999opinion,andremandedthe l casetothiscourtforfurtherproceedings!presumablytoaddresstheStatesdamagesissuethathad X  beenpretermittedintheearlierproceeding.ThecourtlaterdeniedtheStatespetitionforrehearing D! withoutcomment.!l #  4      ׀ 0"   %0!$ @) II.     BeforeaddressingtheStateschallengetotheCommissionsdamageaward,wefindit  necessarytopointoutasubstantialquestionregardingtheapplicationofthe1999amendmentof t Tenn.CodeAnn.98310tothiscase.WearenotreferringtotheStatesassertionthatMs. ` MorrissclaimdoesnotqualifyasoneofthepreApril7,1999claimsthatcanbeconsideredbythe L  Commissionbecauseitwasnot pendingoronappealwhenthe1999amendmentbecame 8  effective. #  5      ׀Rather,wearereferringtothefactthe1999amendmentcontainsnolanguagestatingor $ t implyingthattheamendmentvalidatesorratifiestheresultsofaproceedingthatwaspatently  ` beyondtheCommissionssubjectmatterjurisdictionwhenitwasconducted.  L  @) A.  $    TheTennesseeSupremeCourtconstruedthe1999amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.98310   asvalidatingtheresultsoftheCommissions1996proceeding.Doingsoappearstobeadeparture   fromthecourtsearlierholdingthat,whenthesubstantivelawchangeswhileacaseisonappeal,the   courtwillapplythelawasitstoodatthetimeoftrial.Gainesv.Catron,20Tenn.(1Hum.)513,522 p (1840).  #  6      ׀ThiscasedoesnotrequireustospeculatewhetherthecourtintendedtoalignTennessee \ withthemajorityofjurisdictionsinwhichtheappellatecourtsapplythelawasitexistsatthetime H oftheappealunlessdoingsowouldinterferewithavestedright" #  7      ׀orwhetherthecourtsimply 4  intendedtorecognizeanexceptiontothelongstandingruleinGainesv.Catronforexplicitly  p retroactivestatutorychanges.# #  8      ׀Nomatterwhatthecourtsintentionmayhavebeen,thepractical   effectofitsMay24,1999orderisthesame.Thecourthasappliedthe1999amendmenttoTenn.  CodeAnn.98310toa1996proceeding.    TheTennesseeGeneralAssemblyspowertoenactthe1999amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn. ` 98310cannotbedisputed.TheGeneralAssemblymayenactlegislationaffectingpublicrights L  thatarestillatissueinapendingjudicialproceeding.% #  9      ׀Thus,itmayenactretroactivelegislationto 8  curedefectsinactsdoneortoauthorizeorratifytheexerciseofpowerbyapublicofficialaslong $ t astworequirementsaresatisfied.First,theGeneralAssemblymusthaveoriginallyhadtheauthority  ` toconferthepowerortoauthorizetheact.Bozemanv.Stateexrel.Anderson,206Tenn.23,28,330  L  S.W.2d553,555(1959);Cincinnati,NewOrleans&TexasRy.v.RheaCounty,194Tenn.167,172,  8  250S.W.2d60,62(1952);Soukupv.Sell,171Tenn.437,44243,104S.W.2d830,832(1937); $  Malonev.Peay,159Tenn.321,32526,17S.W.2d901,903(1929).Second,thecurative   legislationmustnotimpaircontractsordisturbvestedprivaterights.Andersonv.MemphisHous.   Auth.,534S.W.2d125,127(Tenn.Ct.App.1975);seealsoHewittv.RinconDelDiabloMun.   WaterDist.,165Cal.Rptr.545,552(App.Ct.1980);Stateexrel.Tomasicv.KansasCity,636P.2d   760,775(Kan.1981);Priestv.CanadaLifeAssuranceCo.,446N.W.2d352,354(Mich.Ct.App. p 1989). \   The1999amendmentofTenn.CodeAnn.98310becameeffectivewhileMs.Morriss 4 appealwasstillpending,$x #  10      ׀anditsatisfiesbothrequirementsforvalidcurativelegislation.First,  p Tenn.Const.art.I,17unquestionablygivestheGeneralAssemblybroadauthoritytowaivethe  \ statessovereignimmunitytopermitclaimsorlawsuitsagainsttheState.N` #  11      ׀TheGeneralAssembly H haspossessedthispowersincetheadoptionofTennesseesfirstconstitutionin1796.Thus,the  GeneralAssemblycouldhaveauthorizedretaliatorydischargeclaimswhenitcreatedthe  Commissionin1984justasitdidfifteenyearslater.Second,thecurativelegislationdidnotdisturb  ordestroyvestedprivaterights,includingrightsembodiedinafinaljudgment.Therightinvolved t herewasapublicright!theStatesrighttoimmunityfromsuitsformoneydamages.Astatemay ` enactlawswaivingorimpairingitsownrights,LouisianaPub.FacilitiesAuth.v.Foster,795So. L  2d288,293(La.2001);AmericanMut.LiabilityIns.Co.v.Commonwealth,398N.E.2d491,496 8  (Mass.1979);Morrisv.Calvert,329S.W.2d117,123(Tex.Civ.App.1959)(Hughes,J., $ t dissenting),andmayevenimposeonitselfnewliabilitieswithrespecttotransactionsalreadypast.  ` Santangelov.State,601N.Y.S.2dat309.Accordingly,the1999amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.  L  98310wasanappropriateexerciseoftheGeneralAssemblyspowerunderTenn.Const.art.I,  8  17. $  @& B. 󀀀     DecidingthattheGeneralAssemblyhadthepowertoratifytheCommissions$300,000   awardtoMs.Morrisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthe1999amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.98 t 310actuallyratifiedtheaward.Thelegaleffectoftheamendmentdependsonitslanguage. `   Theresponsibilityfordeterminingwhatastatutemeansrestswiththecourts.Rosemanv. 8 Roseman,890S.W.2d27,29(Tenn.1994);RealtyShop,Inc.v.R.R.WestminsterHolding,Inc.,7 $t S.W.3d581,601(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Wemustascertainandthengivethefullestpossibleeffect ` totheGeneralAssemblyspurposeinenactingthestatuteasreflectedinthestatuteslanguage. L Stewartv.State,33S.W.3d785,79091(Tenn.2000);Lavinv.Jordon,16S.W.3d362,365(Tenn. 8 2000).Indoingso,wemustavoidconstructionsthatundulyexpandorrestrictthestatutes $ application.Robinsonv.LeCorps,___S.W.3d___,___,2002WL2023110,at*2(Tenn.2002);  Wattv.LumbermensMut.Cas.Ins.Co.,62S.W.3d123,12728(Tenn.2001).    OurconstructionofastatuteismorelikelytoconformwiththeGeneralAssemblyspurpose  ifweapproachthestatutepresumingthattheGeneralAssemblychoseitswordspurposelyand p deliberately,Tidwellv.ServomationWilloughbyCo.,483S.W.2d98,100(Tenn.1972);Merrimack \  Mut.FireIns.Co.v.Batts,59S.W.3d142,151(Tenn.Ct.App.2001),andthatthewordsthe H! GeneralAssemblychoseconveythemeaningitintendedthemtoconvey.Limbaughv.CoffeeMed. 4"  Ctr.,59S.W.3d73,83(Tenn.2001);BellSouthTelecomms.,Inc.v.Greer,972S.W.2d663,673  #p! (Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Thus,wemustconstruestatutesaswefindthem,Jacksonv.Jackson,186  $\" Tenn.337,342,210S.W.2d332,334(1948);PacificEasternCorp.v.GulfLifeHoldingCo.,902 $H # S.W.2d946,954(Tenn.Ct.App.1995),andoursearchforastatutespurposemustbeginwiththe %4!$ wordsofthestatuteitself.Blankenshipv.EstateofBain,5S.W.3d647,651(Tenn.1999);Stateex & "% rel.CommrofTransp.v.MedicineBirdBlackBearWhiteEagle,63S.W.3d734,754(Tenn.Ct.  App.2001).   &(432  Wemustgiveastatuteswordstheirnaturalandordinarymeaningunlessthecontextrequires t otherwise.Frazierv.EastTenn.BaptistHosp.,55S.W.3d925,928(Tenn.2001);Mooneyv.Sneed, ` 30S.W.3d304,306(Tenn.2000).Becausewordsareknownbythecompanytheykeep,Stateex L  rel.CommrofTransp.v.MedicineBirdBlackBearWhiteEagle,63S.W.3dat754,weshould 8  construethewordsinastatuteinthecontextoftheentirestatuteandinlightofthestatutesgeneral $ t purpose.Statev.Flemming,19S.W.3d195,197(Tenn.2000);Lyonsv.Rasar,872S.W.2d895,  ` 897(Tenn.1994).Whenthemeaningofstatutorylanguageisclear,wemustinterpretitaswritten,  L  Kradelv.PiperIndus.,Inc.,60S.W.3d744,749(Tenn.2001);ATSSoutheast,Inc.v.CarrierCorp.,  8  18S.W.3d626,62930(Tenn.2000),ratherthanusingthetoolsofconstructiontogivethestatute $  anothermeaning.Limbaughv.CoffeeMed.Ctr.,59S.W.3dat83;Gleavesv.CheckerCabTransit   Corp.,15S.W.3d799,803(Tenn.2000).     ThecourtsholdtheGeneralAssemblytoaheightenedstandardofclaritywhenitwieldsits   powerunderTenn.Const.art.I,17towaivetheStatessovereignimmunity.Ontheseoccasions, p theGeneralAssemblymustactwithprecisionbecauselegislationnarrowingtheStatessovereign \ immunityisinderogationoftheStatescommonlawexemptionfromsuit.BeareCo.v.Olsen,711 H S.W.2d603,605(Tenn.1986);Stateexrel.Allenv.Cook,171Tenn.605,611,106S.W.2d858, 4 86061(1937).WhilethisheightenedstandarddoesnotlimitthescopeoftheGeneralAssemblys  p power,itobligatestheGeneralAssemblytoactplainly,clearly,andunmistakablywhenitauthorizes  \ suitsorclaimsagainstthestate.Brewingtonv.Brewington,215Tenn.475,479,387S.W.2d777, H 779(1965)(holdingthatactsauthorizingclaimsagainsttheStatemustbe plain,clearand 4 unmistakable);Daleyv.State,869S.W.2d338,340(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Thecourtslackthe   authoritytoabrogatetheStatessovereignimmunityontheirown;therefore,theymustavoid   inadvertentlybroadeningthescopeoflegislationauthorizingsuitsorclaimsagainsttheState.Hill  v.Beeler,199Tenn.325,329,286S.W.2d868,869(1956);Stokesv.UniversityofTennessee,737  S.W.2d545,546(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).    The1999amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.98310isstraightforwardandclear.Itcontains X  twosubstantiveprovisions.First,itprohibitsentitiesofstategovernmentfromterminatingastate D! employeesolelyforfilingaworkerscompensationclaim.Tenn.CodeAnn.98310(a).Second, 0"  itprovidesemployeeswhoaredischargedforfilingaworkerscompensationclaimwithachoice #l! oftworemedies!filingagrievanceorfilingaclaimfordamageswiththeCommission.Tenn.Code $X" Ann.98310(b).Byexplicitlyauthorizingemployeestofilearetaliatorydischargeclaimwiththe $D # Commission,the1999amendmentnecessarilyexpandedtheCommissionssubjectmatter %0!$ jurisdictiontoadjudicatetheseclaims. &"%     InadditiontoexpandingthesubjectmatterjurisdictionoftheCommissiontoinclude (#' retaliatorydischargeclaims,the1999amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.98310clearlygavethe )$( Commissionauthoritytohearanddecidecertainretaliatorydischargeclaimsthathadaccruedbefore |*%)  itseffectivedate.TheseclaimsincludedthosefiledwiththeCommissiononorafterJuly1,1992, h+&* thatwerestillpendingoronappealwhenthe1999amendmentbecameeffective.* #  12      ׀Thus,oncethe   1999amendmenttookeffect,theCommissionclearlyhadtheauthoritytohearanddecideMs.  MorrissclaimbecauseshefileditonorafterJuly1,1992,andbecauseitwasstillonappealwhen  the1999amendmenttookeffect. t   GivingtheCommissionjurisdictiontoadjudicateclaimsaccruingbeforetheexpansionof L  itssubjectmatterjurisdictionisnotthesameasratifyingawardshandeddownbytheCommission 8  whenitlackedjurisdictiontodoso.Thelanguageofthe1999amendmentdoesnotplainly,clearly, $ t andunmistakablyexpresstheGeneralAssemblysintentordesiretoratifyorconfirmanyawardof  ` damagesforretaliatorydischargedamagestheCommissionmighthavemadepriortoApril7,1999.  L  Infact,nothinginthe1999amendmentcanreasonablybeconstruedasratifyinganyawardof  8  damagesforretaliatorydischarge.) #  13      ׀Thus,the1999amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.98310 $  shouldnotbeconstruedasvalidatingtheresultsoftheCommissions1996proceedinginvolving   Ms.Morrissclaim.Atmost,itgivesMs.Morrisanopportunitytonowpresentherclaimtothe   Commissionforadjudicationdenovo.   @) C.  p   InitsMay24,1999order,theTennesseeSupremeCourtconcludedthat [t]hecommission H didhavesubjectmatterjurisdictiontodecidetheplaintiffsclaimforretaliatorydischarge.Aswe 4 understandthislanguage,thecourtmusthavedecidedthatthe1999amendmentcuredthe  p jurisdictionaldefectintheCommissions1996proceedinginvolvingMs.Morrissclaim.Theeffect  \ ofthecourtsdecisionwillbetovalidatetheCommissions$300,000awardtoMs.Morrisunless H theStateprevailswithitsargumentthattheCommissiondoesnothavetheauthoritytoawardfront 4 paydamages.     EventhoughwedisagreewiththeTennesseeSupremeCourtsconclusionregardingthelegal  effectofthe1999amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.98310,wehavenoauthoritytodisregardit.  Paynev.Johnson,2Tenn.Cas.(Shannon)542,543(1877).Asanintermediateappellatecourt,we  mustfollowthedirectivesoftheTennesseeSupremeCourt,particularlywhenthe courthasgiven l definiteexpressiontoitsviewsinacaseaftercarefulconsideration.Holderv.TennesseeJudicial X  SelectionCommn,937S.W.2d877,881(Tenn.1996);Bargerv.Brock,535S.W.2d337,341 D! (Tenn.1976).Therefore,weaccedetotheTennesseeSupremeCourtsconstructionofthe1999 0"  amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.98310and,forthepurposeofthisopinion,wewillbaseour #l! analysisonthepremisethattheCommissionhadsubjectmatterjurisdictionin1996toawardMs. $X" Morrismoneydamagesforherretaliatorydischargeclaim. $D # Ї@^^( III.     TheonlymatterlefttobeaddressedistheCommissionsdecisiontoawardMs.Morrisfront  pay.TheStateassertsthatthecommissionexceededitsstatutoryauthoritybyawardingfrontpay t becauseitisanequitableremedythattheCommissionhasnotbeenempoweredtogrant.Wehave ` determinedthatTenn.CodeAnn.98307(a)(1)(Supp.2001)permitstheCommissiontoaward L  prospectivemonetarydamagesforthelossofearningsthatanemployeewouldhaveearnedhadhe 8  orshenotbeenwrongfullyterminated. $ t   TheCommissiondeterminedthattheStatehadactedinan egregiousmannerbyfiringMs.  L  Morrisinretaliationforherfilingofaworkerscompensationclaim.Afterdeterminingthat  8  reinstatementwasnotfeasible,theCommissionsetouttomakeMs.Morriswholebyawardingher $  damageswithoutprovidingherawindfall.MindfulofthecapondamagesinTenn.CodeAnn.   98307(e),theCommissionawardedMs.Morris$300,000afterdeterminingthatshewasentitled   to$16,954.36inbackpayandapproximately$298,881infrontpay.     TheStatedoesnottakeexceptionwiththeCommissionsfindingsthattheconductofMs. p MorrisssupervisorwasegregiousorthatreinstatingMs.Morristoherformerjobwasnotfeasible. \ TheStatelikewisedoesnottakeissuewiththeCommissionsdecisiontoawardMs.Morris H $16,954.36inbackpay,anditdoesnotevenassertthattheevidenceintherecorddoesnotsupport 4 theCommissionersfrontpayaward.ItsimplyclaimsthattheCommissionlacksstatutoryauthority  p toawardfrontpay.  \   TheCommission,asastatutoryadministrativeagency,doesnothavetheinherentjudicial 4 powersvestedinTennesseesArticleVIcourts.Itspowersarelimitedtothoseexpresslygranted   bystatuteornecessarilyrequiredtoenableittofulfillitsstatutorymandate.SanifillofTenn.,Inc.   v.TennesseeSolidWasteDisposalControlBd.,907S.W.2d807,810(Tenn.1995);Stateexrel.  CommrofTransp.v.MedicineBirdBlackBearWhiteEagle,63S.W.3dat769.Thusoursearch  fortheCommissionspowertoawardfrontpaydamagesmustbeginwithitsenablinglegislation.    Tenn.CodeAnn.98307doesnotexpresslyauthorizetheCommissiontograntequitable X  relief.However,Tenn.CodeAnn.98307explicitlyempowerstheCommissionto determine D! allmonetaryclaimsagainstthestatebasedondefinedactsoromissionsofstateemployees.  #  14      ׀Italso 0"  providesthattheStatecanbeheldliableforupto$300,000inactualdamagesperclaimantT #  15      ׀andthat #l! theStatemaynotbeorderedtopaypunitivedamages. #  16      ׀Thus,thedispositivequestioniswhether $X" anawardoffrontpaydamagesisamonetaryawardofactualdamages. $D #   &"%   Inanearliercaseinvolvingtheallocationofresponsibilityforcalculatingfrontpay,weheld   thattrialcourts,ratherthanjuries,shouldcalculatefrontpaybecauseitisan equitableremedy.  Sasserv.AverittExpress,Inc.,839S.W.2d422,435(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).However,wealso  pointedoutthatfrontpayisasubstitutefortheequitableremedyofreinstatementandthatitamounts t toanawardofprospectivemonetarydamagesforthelossoffutureearnings.Sasserv.Averitt ` Express,Inc.,839S.W.2dat433435.Thus,frontpayismonetaryreliefintendedtocompensate L  anemployeeforthelossoffutureearnings.Coffeyv.FayetteTubularProds.,929S.W.2d326,332 8  (Tenn.1996);GregN.Grimsley,Note,FrontPay!ProphylacticReliefUnderTitleVIIoftheCivil $ t RightsActof1964,29Vand.L.Rev.211,212(1976).AsJudgeRichardPosnerhasnoted,frontpay  ` isdesigned tomonetizethevalueofanemployeesfuturecompensationdeniedtohimorherby  L  theemployerswrongfulact.Fortinov.QuasarCo.,950F.2d389,398(7thCir.1991).Measured  8  asthepresentvalueoffutureincomethedischargedemployeewouldhaveearned,lessany $  mitigation,afrontpayawardreflectsthemonetaryvalueoftheharmresultingfromtheadverse   employmentaction.BrianS.Felton,Note,JuryComputationofFrontPayUndertheAge   DiscriminationinEmploymentAct,76Minn.L.Rev.985,1006(1992).     RecognizingthatfrontpayisaformofmonetaryreliefprovidestheanswertotheStates p argumentagainstthefrontpaydamagesinthiscase.Tenn.CodeAnn.98307(a)(1)empowers \ it todetermineallmonetaryclaimsagainstthe[S]tate.Aclaimantseekingdamagesforwrongful H actsoromissionsofstateemployeesis,infact,makingamonetaryclaim.SeeInreCottonwood 4 CanyonLandCo.,146B.R.992,999(Bankr.D.Colo.1992)(holdingthataplaintiffismakinga  p monetaryclaimiftheonlythingalosingdefendantcandoistopayoutmoney).Thus,whenMs.  \ Morrissoughtfrontpaydamages,shewasmakingamonetaryclaimagainsttheStatethatwasclearly H withintheCommissionspowertoadjudicate.Accordingly,weconcludethattheCommissiondid 4 notexceeditsjurisdictionwhenitawardedMs.Morris$298,881infrontpaydamages.   @dd) IV.     WeaffirmtheCommissions$300,000awardtoMs.Morrisandremandthecasetothe  Commissionforwhateverfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinionmayberequired.Wetax l thecostsofthisappealtotheStateofTennessee. X     `     h     _____________________________ #l!    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE