ÿWPCõ /# ¢UN­ %û 0(b)w@14q…” 0Jœ 0Tæ 0^: 0h˜ 0r 0|r 0†î 0t 1u 0dyU>ÝB) AQD Æ• 0D[ 0@Ÿ 0Dß DC# D/f B• B² D3Ï AM U*O +y v~¤ vÓ"˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- hDiDjkElEmnEopÓ€zê‚_#3|xz2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌNovember€14,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÆXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò ò›Þ ÞÌPATRICIA€ANN€WOLFE,€BETTIEà à)ÌL.€ROBERTS,€PATRICIA€PELTON,à à)à àFranklin€ChanceryÌODIE€L.€MANN,€BOYD€à àà àà à)à àNo.€€14,240ÌSTUBBLEFIELD,€and€RICHARD€G.à à)ÌRAY,à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9611„CH„00514̜ـ!ÙßR€*,%A1-j|©ü²` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌTHE€UNIVERSITY€OF€TENNESSEE,€à à)Ìand€THE€UNIVERSITY€OFà àà à)€ÌTENNESSEE€SPACE€INSTITUTE,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€FRANKLIN€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€WINCHESTER,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€WILLIAM€DENDER€(By€Designation)€JUDGEÌó óÌÌMARY€A.€PARKERÌSTEPHEN€C.€CROFFORDÌPARKER€AND€CROFFORDÌ209€Tenth€Avenue€So.,€Suite€511ÌCummins€StationÌNashville,€TN€37203ÌATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTSÌÌœALICE›€M.€WOODYà àà àà àà àà àà àALAN€M.€PARKERÌAssistant€General€Counselà àà àà àà àà àLEWIS,€KING,€KRIEF,ÌTHE€UNIVERSITY€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà àWALDROP€&€CATRONÌ719€Andy€Holt€Towerà àà àà àà àà àOne€Centre€SquareÌKnoxville,€TN€37908„0170à àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€37901ÌÌBEN€P.€LYNCHÌLYNCH,€LYNCH€&€LYNCHÌP.O.€Box€310ÌWinchester,€TN€37398ÌATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLEESÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÔ€XÔó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌœ›à àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€œJUDGE̛̜CONCUR€IN€SEPARATE€OPINIONÌWILLIAM›€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÇò òPATRICIA€ANN€WOLFE,€BETTIEà à)ÌL.€ROBERTS,€PATRICIA€PELTON,à à)à àFranklin€ChanceryÌODIE€L.€MANN,€BOYD€à àà àà à)à àNo.€€14,240ÌSTUBBLEFIELD,€and€RICHARD€G.à à)ÌRAY,à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9611„CH„00514Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌTHE€UNIVERSITY€OF€TENNESSEE,€à à)Ìand€THE€UNIVERSITY€OFà àà à)€ÌTENNESSEE€SPACE€INSTITUTE,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÓÓà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)Ìó óÌà@ àòòÔ€¼Ôò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€XÔóóÌÌÓÓÓÓÓ  Óà àSix€plaintiffs€joined€in€this€age€discrimination€suit€under€the€Tennessee€Human€RightsÏAct,€T.C.A.€ðððð€4„21„101€et€seq..€€The€Trial€Court€rendered€summary€judgment€dismissing€theÏsuits€of€all€plaintiffs,€who€have€appealed,€submitting€a€single€issue€for€review€and€theÏcorrectness€of€the€summary€judgment.ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓTHE€CASEó óóóÌÓ  Óà àOn€September€26,€1994,€the€six€captioned€plaintiffs€filed€their€joint€complaint€againstÏthe€captioned€defendants,€alleging€that€on€or€about€February€14,€1994,€plaintiffs€were€forcedÏby€defendants€to€accept€a€lay„off€or€forced€to€take€early€retirement€in€violation€of€the€ageÏdiscrimination€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act,€and€in€breach€of€their€contractÏof€employment.€€ÌÌà àThe€action€for€breach€of€contract€was€dismissed€by€agreed€order.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendants€answered,€denying€that€the€complaint€states€a€claim€for€which€relief€canÏbe€granted,€admitting€the€employment€of€plaintiffs,€admitting€that€the€Space€Institute€was€anÏintegral€part€of€the€University€which€is€an€agency€of€the€State€subject€to€suit€under€theÏTennessee€Human€Rights€Act,€T.C.A.€ðððð€4„21„102€et€seq..€€The€answer€admits€that€plaintiffsÏwere€scheduled€to€be€laid€off€or€assigned€a€reduced€work€schedule,€but€not€because€of€theirÏage,€admits€that€all€of€plaintiffs€were€over€40€years€of€age,€but€denies€that€plaintiffs,€or€any€ofÏthem€were€subjected€to€discrimination€because€of€age,€or€that€plaintiffs€were€replaced€by€otherÏemployees€of€a€younger€age.€€The€answer€asserts€that€the€actions€complained€of€were€madeÏnecessary€by€a€reduction€in€the€funds€available€for€operation€of€the€Institute.ÌÌà àAn€agreed€order€struck€jury€demands€from€the€pleadings.ÌÌà àDefendants€amended€their€answer€to€particularize€various€defenses.ÌÌà àOn€November€30,€1995,€defendant€University€moved€for€summary€judgment€as€to€allÏplaintiffs.Ìà àÌà àOn€May€6,€1996,€the€University€filed€a€Supplement€to€its€Motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€in€regard€to€Bettie€L.€Roberts.ÌÌà àOn€June€18,€1996,€plaintiffs€were€permitted€to€amend€their€complaint€in€regard€to€OdieÏMann.€€ÌÌà àOn€July€1,€1996,€the€Trial€Judge€filed€separate€memorandum€as€to€the€suits€of€five€ofÏthe€plaintiffs.ÌÌà àOn€July€12,€1996,€the€Trial€Court€entered€separate€orders€dismissing€the€suits€of€eachÏof€the€plaintiffs€by€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àOn€July€27,€1996,€the€Trial€Judge€filed€a€separate€memorandum€as€to€the€suit€of€PatriciaÏAnn€Wolfe.€€€ÌÌà àThe€memorandum€of€the€Trial€Judge€discusses€separately€the€facts€relating€to€eachÏplaintiff.€€This€Court€will€therefore€review€the€findings€separately.ÌÌà à1.à àThe€findings€of€the€Trial€Court€as€to€Patricia€Ann€Wolfe€are:ÌÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` Òà àPatricia€Ann€Wolfe€was€the€only€employee€in€the€jobÏclassification€of€Senior€Administrative€Assistant€at€UTSI.€ÏShe€was€not€terminated€in€the€March€1994€RIF,€but€she€wasÏadvised€that€UTSI€intended€to€reduce€her€employment€toÏ50%€time.€€She€declined€to€accept€reduced€employment€andÏelected€instead€to€retire,€and€she€receives€retirement€pay€fromÏthe€Tennessee€Consolidated€Retirement€System.€€She€alsoÏreceived€unemployment€benefits.€€She€claims€she€wasÏconstructively€discharged.ÌÌà àShe€would€have€been€returned€to€100%€employmentÏand€benefits€by€July€1,€1994,€if€she€had€accepted€the€reducedÏhours€of€employment€decision€concerning€the€March€1994ÏRIF.€€All€remaining€employees€who€accepted€the€reducedÏemployment€in€the€March€1994€RIF€were€returned€to€100%Ïemployment€as€of€July€1,€1994.ÌÌà àMs.€Wolfe€claims€Ms.€Linda€Crosslin€should€haveÏbeen€included€in€the€RIF€instead€of€her,€because€Ms.ÏCrosslin€is€younger€and€had€been€trained€by€Ms.€Wolfe.€ÏMs.€Crosslin€was€Executive€Assistant€to€the€Vice€President,Ía€job€classification€admittedly€different€to€Ms.€WolfeððsÏclassification.€[Wolfe€deposition,€p.€151]ÌÌà àThe€job€classification€of€Senior€AdministrativeÏAssistant€was€not€filled.€€The€evidence€before€the€CourtÏindicated€the€job€functions€and€duties€which€she€performedÏwere€spread€among€existing€employees,€including€theÏassignment€of€her€duties€to€the€existing€Executive€Assistant,ÏMs.€Linda€Crosslin.€€However,€there€are€details€concerningÏthe€distribution€of€those€duties€which€the€Court€has€beenÏunable€to€locate,€and€the€Court€feels€it€is€necessary€toÏsupplement€the€record€as€specifically€set€forth€later€in€thisÏmemorandum.ÌÌà àMs.€Wolfe€said€she€retired€in€order€to€be€eligible€forÏhealth€insurance€as€a€retired€state€employee.€€ÌÌà àShe€filed€a€claim€with€the€Social€SecurityÏAdministration€for€disability€benefits€claiming€that€she€wasÏð ðunable€to€work€because€of€allergies€and€asthma.ðð€[WolfeÏdeposition€2„29„96,€p.7€and€Ex.€1]€She€supported€her€claimÏwith€statements€from€her€doctor.€[Wolfe,€p.€164„166].€€TheÏSocial€Security€Administration€denied€her€claim€on€8„22„94,Ïand€she€filed€a€request€for€reconsideration.€[Wolfe,€p.7]ÌÌà àMs.€Wolfe€claims€she€was€replaced€by€Mary€HelenÏBritton,€and€that€there€was€a€promotional€announcementÏdated€March€25,€1994,€advertising€for€the€position€formerlyÏheld€by€Ms.€Wolfe;€and€a€memorandum,€dated€4/28/94,Ïannounced€that€Ms.€Mary€Helen€Brittain€was€selected€asÏMcCayððs€Executive€Assistant.€€Excerpts€from€thatÏmemorandum€state:€ð ðThis€was€a€new€position€created€toÏsupport€the€vice€presidentððs€officeðð€and€ð ðThe€new€positionÏwas€necessary€due€to€the€retirement€of€the€administrativeÏassistant€and€in€addition,€the€Executive€Assistant€to€the€ViceÏPresident,€Ms.€Linda€Crosslin,€taking€the€position€of€SpecialÏEvents€Coordinator.ððÌÌà àDefendants€claim€Ms.€Wolfe€does€not€show€a€primaÏfacie€case€because€(1)€she€was€not€terminated,€and€(2)€sheÏwas€not€replaced€by€a€younger€worker.€€Defendants€alsoÏclaim€she€is€barred€by€judicial€estoppel,€because€of€herÏallegations€in€her€claim€for€social€security€disability.ÌÌà àMs.€Wolfe€asks€for€reinstatement,€and€she€supportsÏthis€request€with€a€statement€from€Dr.€Stephen€Hunter€Bills.ÌÌà àAt€the€present€time,€the€Court€reserves€judgment€onÏthe€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€or€Partial€SummaryÏJudgment€concerning€Ms.€Wolfe,€including€the€question€ofÏjudicial€estoppel.ÌÌà àAs€soon€as€possible,€and€at€least€within€15€days€fromÏthe€date€this€memorandum€is€received,€counsel€for€theÏdefendants€will€please€supplement€the€record,€or€pointÏspecifically€to€the€evidence,€in€order€that€the€Court€canÏdetermine€(1)€the€date€Ms.€Wolfe€retired,€(2)€the€specificÏduties€of€Ms.€Wolfe€that€were€distributed€to€existingÏemployees€and€the€names€and€job€titles€of€those€employees,Ï(3)€whether€these€employees€had€other€duties€they€performedÏin€addition€to€the€duties€of€Ms.€Wolfe€which€were€distributedÏto€them,€(4)€the€date€Ms.€Linda€Crosslin€accepted€the€job€ofÏSpecial€Events€Coordinator,€and€(5)€the€specific€dutiesÏassigned€to€Ms.€Mary€Helen€Britton€and€how€those€dutiesÏwere€different€from€the€duties€of€Ms.€Wolfe,€if€there€wereÏany€differences.ÌÌà àCounsel€for€Ms.€Wolfe€may€supplement€the€record,Ïif€they€choose,€within€10€days€from€the€date€they€receive€theÏsupplement€to€the€record€filed€by€defense€counsel.ÌÌÌÌà àòòò òMemorandum€Concerning€Patricia€AnnÏWolfeó óóóÌÌà àThis€is€a€continued€consideration€of€the€Motion€forÏSummary€Judgment€or€Partial€Summary€Judgment€filedÏagainst€Patricia€Ann€Wolfe.€€The€defendants€seek€summaryÏjudgment€on€the€ground€that€Ms.€Wolfe€has€not€established€aÏprima€facie€case€of€age€discrimination.ÌÌà àIn€order€to€be€successful€in€this€case,€it€is€basic€thatÏthe€plaintiff€must€get€over€the€hurdle€of€constructiveÏdischarge,€otherwise€there€has€been€no€discharge€of€theÏemployee.€€This€is€considered€to€be€a€factual€issue€whichÏwould€have€to€be€determined€by€the€trier€of€fact;€however,€itÏis€not€necessary€that€this€issue€be€reached€at€this€time.ÌÌà àThe€details€of€Ms.€Wolfeððs€situation€were€set€forth€inÏthe€Courtððs€Memorandum€entered€on€July€1,€1996,€and€allÏportions€of€that€memorandum€pertaining€to€Ms.€Wolfe€areÏincorporated€herein€by€reference.ÌÌà àThis€Court€notes€that€several€times,€orally€and€inÏwriting,€it€has€been€stated€that€Dr.€McCay€said€to€BettieÏRoberts€that€he€was€going€to€get€rid€of€Ms.€Wolfe€and€LindaÏCrosslin€and€replace€them€with€younger€girls€with€happyÏsmiling€faces.€€Plaintiffððs€brief€even€states,€ð ðDr.€McCayÏindicated€that€he€wanted€to€move€Ann€Wolfe€from€herÏposition,€and€the€testimony,€under€oath,€by€Bettie€RobertsÏwas€that€he€was€going€to€replace€her€with€a€younger€happy,Ïsmiling€face.ððÌÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà àIn€fact,€Bettie€Robertsðð€deposition€of€9/13/95€states:ÌÌà àHe€asked€me€while€we€were€in€the€meeting€what€I€thought€ofÏAnn€Wolfe€and€Linda€Crosslin.€€And€I€said,€ð ðWell€you€know,€what€doÏyou€mean?ðð€€And€he€said,€ð ðWell,€what€do€you€think€about€them?ðð€€IÏsaid,€ð ðWell,€I€know€Ann€real€well.€€Weððve€worked€together€for€years.€€IÏdonððt€know€Linda€that€well.ðð€€I€said,€ð ðI€know€Ann€is€very€capable.€ÏSheððs€had,€you€know,€many€years€experience.ððÌÌà àAnd€he€told€me€that€sometimes€those€two€girls,€they€had€ups€andÏdowns.€€They€werenððt€always€happy€and€he€wanted€„„€he€said,€ð ðWhat€IÏwould€like€to€have€is€two€young€girls€in€there€with€happy,€smiley€facesÏso€that€when€anyone€came€in,€no€matter€who,€they€would€be€greeted€theÏsame€and€they€would€be€„„€see€these€happy,€smiley€faces.ðð€€That€wasÏjust€an€off„side€comment.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` Òà àAt€the€request€of€the€Court,€all€parties€haveÏsupplemented€the€record€through€supplemental€affidavits,Ïand€the€Court€will€summarize€important€portions€of€suchÏevidence€below.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓSUPPLEMENTAL€AFFIDAVIT€OF€ÌT.€DWAYNE€McCAY,€Ph.€D.ÌÓ  Óó óÌà àMs.€Wolfe€notified€Dr.€McCay,€by€MemorandumÏdated€February€21,€1994,€that€she€would€be€retiring€from€theÏUT€Space€Institute€on€March€2,€1994.ÌÌà àDr.€McCay€expected€Ms.€Wolfe€to€continue€work€atÏ50%,€and€it€was€his€hope€that€all€employees€acceptingÏreduced€hours€would€be€returned€to€full€employment€by€JulyÏ1,€1994.€€If€Ms.€Wolfe€had€accepted€employment€at€50%,Ïshe€would€have€been€returned€to€100%€status€on€July€1,Ï1994.€€Ms.€Wolfeððs€duties€were€limited€to€answering€theÏphone€and€assisting€in€the€preparation€of€correspondence.ÌÌà àWhen€Ms.€Wolfe€retired,€her€duties€wereÏspontaneously€absorbed€by€the€Executive€Assistant,€Ms.ÍLinda€Crosslin,€who€continued€to€perform€her€primaryÏduties.€€No€other€arrangements€had€been€made€because€itÏwas€expected€that€Ms.€Wolfe€would€work€50%€time.€€WhenÏMs.€Wolfe€refused€to€provide€50%€support€to€the€office,€Dr.ÏMcCay€gave€additional€thought€to€the€staffing€requirements.ÌÌà àOn€March€24,€1994,€UTSI€issued€a€promotionalÏannouncement€to€recruit€a€new€Executive€Assistant€fromÏexisting€UTSI€employees.ÌÌà àOn€April€4,€1994,€Ms.€Crosslinððs€title€was€changedÏto€Special€Events€Coordinator;€and€as€such€she€had€fullÏresponsibility€for€planning€and€conducting€all€special€eventsÏconducted€by€UTSI,€including€professional,€social,€andÏservice€events.€€She€was€also€assigned€responsibility€forÏmanagement€of€the€UTSI€Industry„Student€Center,€whichÏcontains€the€cafeteria€and€dormitory.€€€Ms.€Wolfe€was€notÏassigned€any€of€these€duties€while€Dr.€McCay€has€been€ViceÏPresident.ÌÌà àMs.€Crosslinððs€duties€required€her€own€secretarialÏsupport,€and€she€was€moved€to€a€larger€office,€leaving€theÏVice€Presidentððs€office€with€no€direct€support.ÌÌà àMs.€Mary€Helen€Brittain€was€selected€as€the€newÏExecutive€Assistant,€effective€April€24,€1996.€€Her€dutiesÏincluded,€in€addition€to€maintaining€Dr.€McCayððs€calendarÏand€preparing€correspondence,€the€authoring€of€some€of€hisÏcorrespondence,€representing€him€in€some€meetings,Ïreorganizing€and€upgrading€the€computer€and€officeÏelectronics,€including€software,€supervision€of€six€researchÏgroup€secretaries€(formed€later),€and€chairing€the€CafeteriaÏCommittee.€€None€of€these€other€duties€had€been€assigned€toÏeither€Ms.€Crosslin€or€Ms.€Wolfe.ÌÌà àAfter€Ms.€Brittain€was€selected€to€serve€in€theÏexpanded€role€of€Executive€Assistant,€UTSIððs€long„timeÏPublic€Affairs€Coordinator€retired,€and€that€position€wasÏsplit€into€two€positions,€one€full„time€and€one€part„time.€€AnÏinternal€search€was€made€for€a€replacement,€and€Ms.€BrittainÏapplied€for€the€full„time€position.€€However,€Ms.€BrittainððsÏposition€was€included€in€a€further€RIF€in€October€1995,€as€aÏresult€of€the€continuing€money€crisis,€and€Ms.€Brittain€is€noÏlonger€at€UTSI.ÌÌà àMs.€Brittain€was€replaced€by€a€non„exempt€hourlyÏpaid€secretary,€Ms.€Dee€Robinette.€€Her€job€title€was€and€isÏAdministrative€Services€Assistant,€and€she€is€not€aÍreplacement€for€either€the€Senior€Administrative€Assistant€orÏExecutive€Assistant€position.€€Some€of€the€previousÏExecutive€Assistantððs€duties€have€been€redistributed€andÏsome€are€no€longer€performed€at€all.ÌÌà àAs€far€as€Dr.€McCay€is€concerned,€the€position€ofÏSenior€Administrative€Assistant€has€been€deleted.ÌÌà àNone€of€the€above€evidence€stated€in€Dr.€McCayððsÏsupplemental€affidavit€is€contradicted€by€Ms.€WolfeððsÏsupplemental€affidavit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓSUPPLEMENTAL€AFFIDAVIT€OF€ÌPATRICIA€ANN€WOLFEó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àMs.€Wolfe€states€in€her€supplemental€affidavit,€ð ðAllÏof€the€duties€listed€in€the€promotional€announcement€areÏduties€that€I€was€very€capable€of€performing€and€duties€that€IÏhad€performed€for€the€individuals€that€were€the€Deans€priorÏto€Dr.€Dwayne€McCay€taking€his€position.ððÌÌà àMs.€Wolfe€also€includes€in€her€affifavit€(sic)€a€copyÏof€Exhibit€2€to€Ms.€Wolfeððs€deposition€of€9/12/95€andÏExhibit€ð ðCCðð€to€Plaintiffððs€Summary€Judgment€Response.€ÏA€comparison€of€these€documents€shows€many€comparableÏitems;€however,€the€comparison€also€shows€there€areÏnumerous€additional€duties€listed€on€Exhibit€ð ðCCðð€which€are€Ïnot€listed€on€Exhibit€2.ÌÌà àThe€Court€now€turns€to€consideration€of€judicialÏestoppel.€€In€order€to€maintain€an€age€discrimination€case,Ïthe€plaintiff€must€be€ready,€able,€and€qualified€to€perform€theÏjob€plaintiff€claims€was€lost€as€a€result€of€age€discrimination.ÌÓ  Ó„€„€„€„ÌÓ  Óà àIn€the€opinion€of€the€Court,€Ms.€Wolfe€has€notÏestablished€a€prima€facie€case€of€age€discrimination;€becauseÏthe€evidence,€viewed€in€favor€of€Ms.€Wolfe€and€allowing€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€her€favor,€does€not€establish€eitherÏ(1)€she€was€ready,€able,€and€qualified€to€perform€the€job€sheÏclaims€was€lost€as€a€result€of€age€discrimination,€or€(2)€sheÏwas€replaced€by€another€employee,€or€that€youngerÏemployees€in€the€same€position€were€treated€more€favorably.€ÏHer€duties€were€assumed€by€other€existing€employees,€andÏher€position€has€essentially€been€eliminated.€€There€is€noÏevidence€that€age€was€a€factor€in€the€employment€decisionÏconcerning€Ms.€Wolfe€and€that€ð ðbut€forðð€this€factor€theÏaction€would€not€have€been€taken.ÌÌà àThe€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€concerning€Ms.ÏWolfe€is€sustained.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àThe€findings€of€the€Trial€Court€as€to€Bettie€L.€Roberts€are:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓÌà àBettie€L.€Roberts€was€the€Registrar€at€the€UTSI,€andÏwas€the€only€employee€in€that€department€with€that€jobÏclassification.€€She€was€not€terminated€in€the€March€1994ÏRIF,€but€she€was€notified€that€UTSI€intended€to€reduce€herÏemployment€to€75%€time.€€She€continued€to€work€at€the€75%Ïlevel€for€a€period€of€one€month,€but€at€that€time€decided€notÏto€continue€employment€at€the€75%€level.€€There€is€aÏcontroversy€over€her€being€able€to€continue€to€be€insured€atÏ75%€time.€€She€claims€Mr.€Beardsley,€an€employee€andÏagent€of€UT€at€the€UT€Retirement€Office€told€her€she€shouldÏretire€in€order€to€keep€insurance;€but€in€her€deposition€sheÏadmitted€she€could€continue€insurance.€€It€seems€there€is€aÏquestion€whether€she€could€draw€her€benefits,€includingÏinsurance,€if€she€were€laid€off€at€75%.ÌÌà àThe€position€of€Registrar€was€not€filled.€€HerÏsupervisor,€Dr.€Edward€Gleason,€assumed€the€professionalÏduties€of€Registrar,€and€Mary€Frances€Ferber,€the€Recorder,Ïcontinued€performing€the€clerical€duties.€€Some€functionsÏpreviously€performed€by€Ms.€Roberts€are€not€performed€inÏthe€Graduate€office€of€UTK.ÌÌà àMs.€Ferber€was€hired€and€trained€by€Ms.€Roberts€asÏthe€new€recorder,€the€position€held€by€Ms.€Roberts€beforeÏshe€was€appointed€Registrar€in€1983.€€Ms.€Ferber€was€aÏclerical€employee€before€Ms.€Roberts€retired,€and€sheÏperformed€duties€for€Ms.€Roberts.€€The€Recorder€wasÏresponsible€for€the€data€base,€and€her€skills€and€duties€wereÏdifferent€from€Ms.€Roberts.ÌÌà àMs.€Roberts€would€have€been€returned€to€100%Ïemployment€by€July€1,€1994,€as€were€all€others€whoÏaccepted€reduced€hours.ÌÌà àOn€June€11,€1994,€she€filed€a€Disability€Report€inÏorder€to€claim€Social€Security€Benefits.€€On€June€27,€1994,Ïshe€executed€an€Application€for€Disability€Benefits,€whereÏshe€claimed€she€was€unable€to€work€on€April€1,€1994,Ïbecause€of€her€ð ðdisabling€condition.ðð€€Her€claim€for€SocialÏSecurity€Disability€Benefits€was€denied,€and€she€filed€aÍrequest€for€reconsideration€of€her€claim€on€September€13,Ï1994.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€claims:€(1)€constructive€discharge€and€(2)Ïshe€could€have€performed€the€duties€of€the€employees€toÏwhom€her€duties€were€assigned.ÌÌà àDefendants€claims€she€fails€to€state€a€prima€facie€caseÏbecause€(1)€she€was€not€terminated,€(2)€she€was€not€replacedÏby€a€younger€employee,€and€(3)€her€duties€were€reassignedÏto€existing€employees€or€they€are€no€longer€being€performedÏat€UTSI.€€Defendants€also€claim€she€is€barred€by€judical€(sic)Ïestoppel,€because€of€her€allegations€in€her€claim€for€socialÏsecurity€disability.ÌÌà àShe€also€claims€in€her€affidavit€that€she€is€able€toÏresume€her€duties€as€Registrar,€and€she€asks€forÏreinstatement.ÌÌà àIn€the€opinion€of€the€Court,€Ms.€Roberts€has€notÏestablished€a€prima€facie€case€of€age€discrimination;€becauseÏthe€evidence,€viewed€in€favor€of€Ms.€Roberts€and€allowingÏall€reasonable€inferences€in€her€favor,€does€not€establish€thatÏshe€was€replaced€by€another€employee,€or€that€youngerÏemployees€in€the€same€position€were€treated€more€favorably.€ÏHer€position€has€been€abolished,€and€her€duties€have€beenÏdistributed€to€other€existing€employees.€€There€is€noÏevidence€that€age€was€a€factor€in€the€employment€decisionÏand€that€ð ðbut€forðð€this€factor€the€action€would€not€have€beenÏtaken.ÌÌà àThe€Motion€of€Summary€Judgment€concerning€Ms.ÏRoberts€is€sustained.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àThe€findings€of€the€Trial€Court€as€to€Patricia€A.€Pelton€are:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà àPatricia€A.€Pelton€was€employed€as€a€switchboardÏoperator€and€then€became€classified€as€the€telephone€operatorÏsupervisor.€€Her€duties€were€to€answer€the€phone,€and€sheÏacted€as€the€receptionist€for€the€Institute.€€When€UTSIÏdecided€to€acquire€an€automated€telephone€system,€Ms.ÏPelton€was€assigned€to€begin€performing€some€clerical€workÏfor€the€Director€of€Development.ÌÌà àMs.€Pelton€claims€she€was€working€for€Campaign€94Ïwhen€she€was€terminated,€and€she€claims€she€was€replacedÏby€Betty€Wilkerson€in€Campaign€94.ÌÌà àShe€claims,€after€her€initial€termination,€favoritismÏwas€shown€a€younger€employee,€œDee€Dee›€Jones,€by€hiringÏher€at€$6.50€per€hour.€€UTSI€had€only€offered€Ms.€PeltonÏ$5.00€per€hour€(along€with€2€other€employees)€toÏtemporarily€answer€the€phone.€€After€œDee€Dee›€Jones€left,ÏMs.€Pelton€was€offered€$6.50€per€hour€to€answer€the€phoneÏtemporarily€for€2€weeks.€€She€actually€worked€in€thatÏcapacity€for€approximately€3€months€until€the€new€phoneÏsystem€became€fully€operational.€€There€is€no€longer€aÏswitchboard€operator€at€UTSI,€and€the€position€wasÏcompletely€phased€out.ÌÌà àAfter€the€March€1994€RIF,€there€were€no€clericalÏworkers€in€the€Development€Office€(sic),€but€later€fundingÏbecame€available€for€clerical€assistance€in€that€office.€ÏHowever,€the€new€job€classification€was€a€different€positionÏfrom€the€one€Ms.€Pelton€was€training€for,€and€the€newÏposition€required€greater€skills€than€Ms.€Pelton€possessed.€ÏActual€job€duties€were€different€from€the€work€Ms.€PeltonÏperformed€for€the€Director€of€Development.€€Ms.€PeltonÏdoes€not€dispute€that€the€subsequent€job€in€the€DevelopmentÏOffice€required€more€skills€than€she€possessed.€[PeltonÏdeposition,€104:25„105:5]ÌÌà àDefendants€claim€Ms.€Pelton€does€not€state€a€primaÏfacie€case€because€(1)€her€job€classification€as€telephoneÏswitchboard€operator€supervisor€was€no€longer€needed,Ïbeing€deleted€by€the€installation€of€automatic€equipment,€andÏ(2)€her€job€classification€was€not€replaced€by€a€youngerÏworker.ÌÌà àIn€the€opinion€of€the€Court,€Ms.€Pelton€has€notÏestablished€a€prima€facie€case€of€age€discrimination;€becauseÏthe€evidence,€viewed€in€favor€of€Ms.€Pelton€and€allowing€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€her€favor,€does€not€establish€sheÏwas€replaced€by€another€employee,€or€that€a€youngerÏemployee€in€the€same€job€was€treated€more€favorably.€€HerÏposition€has€been€abolished€because€an€automated€telephoneÏsystem€has€been€installed.€€The€Court€is€not€of€the€opinionÏthat€the€mere€hiring€of€Ms.€œDee€Dee›€Jones,€on€a€temporaryÏbasis,€at€$6.50€per€hour,€after€Ms.€Pelton€had€only€beenÏoffered€and€refused€$5.00€per€hour,€is€such€favoritism€asÏwould€trigger€an€age€discrimination€case.€€This€is€trueÏespecially€when€Ms.€Pelton€accepted€temporary€employmentÏin€that€job€at€$6.50€per€hour€when€Ms.€Jones€left,€and€Ms.ÏPelton€worked€in€that€capacity€for€approximately€3€months.ÌÌà àThere€is€no€evidence€that€age€was€a€factor€in€theÏemployment€decision€and€that€ð ðbut€forðð€this€factor€the€actionÏwould€not€have€been€taken.ÌÌà àThe€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€concerning€Ms.ÏPelton€is€sustained.ÌÌ€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àThe€findings€of€the€Trial€Court€as€to€Odie€L.€Mann€are:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà àOdie€L.€Mann€was€the€only€employee€in€the€cafeteriaÏwith€the€job€classification€of€Senior€Chef.€€The€job€was€notÏfilled€after€she€retired,€and€UTSI€reduced€the€overall€scopeÏand€level€of€the€food€services€offered€at€its€cafeteria.€ÏPreviously,€several€daily€hot€plate€lunches€were€offered,€butÏnow€it€is€mostly€a€fast€food€type€service€and€a€soup/saladÏbar.€€As€of€November€1995,€the€staffing€of€the€cafeteria€hadÏbeen€reduced€to€only€2€part€time€employees.ÌÌà àMs.€Mann€complains€that€Bea€Hill€transferred€intoÏthe€cafeteria,€but€Bea€Hill€replaced€Valerie€Watson,€who€wasÏalready€in€the€cafeteria€and€later€resigned.€€Ms.€Hill€was€58Ïwhen€she€replaced€Ms.€Watson.ÌÌà àMs.€Mannððs€termination€date€was€delayed€until€MayÏ1994,€in€order€for€her€to€be€able€to€receive€her€longevity€payÏand€become€eligible€at€62€years€of€age€to€draw€her€SocialÏSecurity€Benefits.€[Mann€deposition€2/29/96,€p.€31„32]ÌÌà àOn€October€20,€1995,€Ms.€Mann€was€seriouslyÏinjured€in€an€auto€accident.€€On€February€9,€1996,€herÏattorney€filed€suit€on€her€behalf€in€Franklin€County,ÏTennessee,€and€the€suit€claims€that€ð ð(S)he€is€nowÏpermanently€injured,€has€lost€the€capacity€to€earn,€has€lostÏthe€ability€to€enjoy€life,€and€has€suffered€and€continues€toÏsuffer€great€pain,€for€all€of€which€she€is€entitled€to€recover.ððÏ[See€Mann,€p.€3€paragraph€11]ÌÌà àDefendants€claim€Ms.€Mann€fails€to€state€a€primaÏfacie€case€because€(1)€the€position€of€Senior€Chef€was€notÏfilled,€and€(2)€she€was€not€replaced€by€a€younger€worker.€ÏDefendants€also€claim€she€is€barred€by€judicial€estoppel,Ïbecause€of€allegations€in€her€suit€concerning€the€autoÏaccident;€but€that€could€only€affect€events€following€the€autoÏaccident.ÌÌà àIn€the€opinion€of€the€Court,€Ms.€Mann€has€notÏestablished€a€prima€facie€case€of€age€discrimination;€becauseÍthe€evidence,€viewed€in€favor€of€Ms.€Mann€and€allowing€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€her€favor,€does€not€establish€thatÏshe€was€replaced€by€another€employee,€or€that€youngerÏemployees€in€the€same€job€were€treated€more€favorably.€€HerÏposition€as€Senior€Chef€has€been€abolished,€the€overallÏoperation€in€the€cafeteria€has€been€modified,€and€there€areÏonly€two€part€time€employees€in€the€cafeteria€at€this€time.€ÏThere€is€no€evidence€that€age€was€a€factor€in€the€employmentÏdecision€and€that€ð ðbut€forðð€this€factor€the€action€would€notÏhave€been€taken.ÌÌà àThe€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€concerning€Ms.ÏMann€is€sustained.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àThe€findings€of€the€Trial€Court€as€to€Boyd€Stubblefield€are:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓ K ÓÓÓà àBoyd€Stubblefield€was€employed€as€a€mediaÏproduction€assistant,€he€was€the€only€employee€with€that€jobÏclassification,€and€he€was€the€only€full€time€employee€in€thatÏdepartment.€€He€primarily€functioned€as€the€photographer€forÏUTSI.€€He€was€not€terminated,€but€in€the€March€1994€RIF,Ïhe€was€advised€that€UTSI€intended€to€reduce€hisÏemployment€to€50%€time.€€He€claims€this€was€a€constructiveÏdischarge.ÌÌà àHe€has€not€presented€evidence€that€he€meets€theÏfourth€criteria€of€McDonnell€Douglas,€or€that€a€youngerÏemployee€in€the€same€job€was€treated€more€favorably.€€Mr.ÏStubblefield€claims€Ms.€Linda€Horton€was€treated€moreÏfavorably,€but€it€is€clear€Ms.€Horton€was€not€in€the€same€jobÏand€did€not€have€the€same€responsibilities.€€He€was€notÏreplaced€by€a€younger€employee,€and€his€duties€were€eitherÏdistributed€to€existing€employees€or€left€unperformed.€ÏScientific€photography€is€either€not€being€done,€or€is€beingÏperformed€by€existing€research€workers.€€Public€relationsÏphotography€was€done€by€an€older€employee€until€hisÏretirement,€and€upon€that€employeeððs€retirements,€theseÏduties€were€spread€among€other€employees.€€UTSI€no€longerÏdevelopes€film€and€does€not€print€photographs€in„house.ÌÌà àIn€the€opinion€of€the€Court,€Mr.€Stubblefield€has€notÏestablished€a€prima€facie€case€of€age€discrimination;€becauseÏthe€evidence,€viewed€in€favor€of€Mr.€Stubblefield€andÏallowing€all€reasonable€inferences€in€his€favor,€does€notÏestablish€that€he€was€replaced€by€another€employee,€or€that€aÏyounger€employee€in€the€same€job€was€treated€moreÏfavorably.€€His€duties€have€been€distributed€to€existingÍemployees,€left€undone,€or€not€done€in„house.€€There€is€noÏevidence€that€age€was€a€factor€in€the€employment€decisionÏand€that€ð ðbut€forðð€this€factor€the€action€would€not€have€beenÏtaken.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÓ  ÓÌà àThe€motion€for€Summary€Judgment€concerning€Mr.€Stubblefield€is€sustained.ÌÌà àThe€findings€of€the€Trial€Court€as€to€Richard€G.€Ray€are:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà àRichard€G.€Ray€was€employed€as€the€supervisor€inÏthe€Gas€Dynamics€Laboratory,€and€he€was€the€onlyÏemployee€in€that€job€classification€within€that€department.€ÏHe€supervised€only€two€other€workers€in€his€department.€ÏThe€evidence€does€not€show€that€he€meets€the€fourthÏrequirement€of€the€McDonnell€Douglas€test.€€He€was€notÏreplaced€by€a€younger€employee.€€His€job€was€deletedÏentirely€in€the€March€1994€RIF,€and€the€supervisoryÏresponsibilities€of€several€laboratories€were€merged.€ÏAnother€laboratory€supervisor,€Mr.€Goodman,€was€selectedÏto€be€the€supervisor€over€the€laboratories.€€Mr.€GoodmanÏhad€more€senority€than€Richard€G.€Ray,€and€in€addition,€Mr.ÏGoodman€had€expertise€different€from€Mr.€Ray.ÌÌà àHe€complains€that€Ricky€Meeker€should€have€beenÏlaid€off€instead€of€him,€but€it€is€clear€that€Meeker€was€in€aÏdifferent€job€classification,€that€he€was€not€a€supervisor,€andÏthat€he€was€and€is€a€technician€level€individual€performingÏmaintenance.ÌÌà àIn€the€opinion€of€the€Court,€Mr.€Ray€has€notÏestablished€a€prima€facie€case€of€age€discrimination;€becauseÏthe€evidence,€viewed€in€favor€of€Mr.€Ray€and€allowing€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€his€favor,€does€not€establish€that€heÏwas€replaced€by€another€employee,€or€that€a€youngerÏemployee€in€the€same€job€was€treated€more€favorably.€€HisÏposition€has€been€abolished,€and€the€supervisoryÏresponsibilities€of€several€laboratories€were€merged.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€against€Mr.€RayÏis€sustained.ÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòò òÓ  Óà àTHE€APPLICABLE€LAWó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€party€seeking€a€summary€judgment€has€the€initial€burden€of€demonstrating€byÏundisputed€competent€evidence€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€summary€judgment€as€aÏmatter€of€law.€€A€conclusory€assertion€that€the€non„moving€party€has€no€evidence€is€clearlyÏinsufficient.€€Competent€evidence€that€the€non„moving€party€has€no€evidence€may€be€sufficient.€ÏWhen€the€initial€burden€of€the€movant€has€been€satisfied,€the€burden€of€proceeding€shifts€to€theÏopponent€of€the€motion€to€present€competent€evidence€and/or€law€which€negatives€the€groundÏof€the€motion.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€Tenn.€App.€1993,€847€S.W.2d€208.ÌÌà àIn€respect€to€employeesðð€suits€for€unlawful€discrimination,€the€motion€of€the€employerÏfor€summary€judgment€must€be€supported€by€more€than€a€simple€conclusory€oath€that€ð ðI€didÏnot€discriminate.ðð€€The€employer€must€ð ðarticulate€a€legitimate€lawful€reasonðð€for€the€dischargeÏor€discrimination€of€the€employee.€€òòBrenner€v.€Textron€Aerostructuresóó,€Tenn.€App.€1993,€874ÏS.W.2d€579,€òòBruce€v.€Western€Auto€Supply€Coóó.,€Tenn.€App.€1984,€669€S.W.2d€95.€€ThisÏdoes€not€mean€that€the€employer€must€initially€present€competent€evidence€of€facts€supportingÏthe€reason€for€the€management€decision.€€It€is€sufficient€to€present€the€affidavit€of€theÏmanagement€official€that€he€had€received€reports€of€employees€which€he€deemed€sufficient€toÏsupport€this€action.ÌÌà àWhen€the€employer€has€thus€supported€his€action,€the€burden€of€proceeding€shifts€toÏthe€employee€to€present€competent€evidence€that€the€adverse€report€received€by€managementÏwas€untrue,€thus€creating€an€issue€of€material€fact€which€would€render€summary€judgmentÏimproper.€€òòSilpacharin€v.€Metropolitan€Governmentóó,€Tenn.€App.€1990,€797€S.W.2d€625,€€ÍòòBruce€v.€Western€Auto€Supply€Coóó.,€Tenn.€App.€1984,€669€S.W.2d€95,€and€authorities€citedÏtherein.€à àÌÌà àIn€these€suits€by€employees€for€age€discrimination,€the€ultimate€issues€are:€€(1)€whetherÏthe€employee€was€a€member€of€a€protected€class,€(2)€Whether€the€employee€was€subjected€toÏadverse€employment€action,€(3)€Whether€he€or€she€was€qualified€for€the€position€held,€and€(4)Ïhe€or€she€was€replaced€by€a€younger€person.€€òòMcDonnell€Douglas€Corp.€v.€Greenóó,€411€U.S.Ï792,€93€S.Ct.€1817,€37€L.€Ed.2d€668€(1973).€€Such€may€be€shown€by€direct,€circumstantial,Ïor€statistical€evidence.òò€€Bruce€v.€Western€Auto€Supply€Co.,€Supraóó.ÌÌà àWhile€statistical€testimony€has€been€admitted€and€considered€in€some€cases,€it€isÏgenerally€looked€upon€with€caution€or€suspicion.€€The€inquiry€is€how€a€particular€individualÏhas€been€treated,€rather€than€any€practice€in€the€industry€or€even€in€the€general€practice€or€policyÏof€the€employer.€€òòCumpiano€v.€Banco€Santander€P.R.óó,€1st€Cir.€1990,€902€F.2d€148;òò€Mack€v.ÏGreat€Atl.€&€Pac.€Tea€Coóó.,€1st€Cir.€1989,€871€F.2d€179;€òòWalther€v.€Lone€Star€Gas€Coóó.,€5thÏCir.€1992,€977€F.2d€161;€òòGadson€v.€Concord€Hospitalóó,€1st€Cir.€1992,€966€F.2d€32.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€Trial€Court€held€that€the€statistical€evidence€offered€by€plaintiffsÏin€response€to€defendantððs€motion€was€an€insufficient€response€to€defendantððs€articulatedÏlegitimate€reason€for€the€action€taken.ÌÌà àAppellants€argue€that€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€McCay€as€to€the€reasons€for€his€decisionsÏconcerning€plaintiffs€is€not€sufficient€to€support€defendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏbecause€Dr.€McCay€kept€no€notes€of€his€reasons€which€renders€them€suspect,€therebyÍproviding€a€basis€for€consideration€of€the€testimony€of€the€statistician.€€This€Court€agrees€withÏthe€holding€of€the€Trial€Court€that€Dr.€McCayððs€credibility€was€not€impeached€and€that€theÏstatistics€were€insufficient€to€contradict€his€testimony.ÌÌà àSome€of€the€plaintiffððs€arguments€cannot€be€considered€because€they€do€not€complyÏwith€Rule€6(b)€of€the€Rules€of€this€Court€by€citing€the€pages€of€the€record€where€evidence€mayÏbe€found.òò€€Alexander€v.€Tennessee€Farmers€Mutual€Insurance€Coóó.,€Tenn.€App.€1995,€905ÏS.W.2d€177,€òòPearman€v.€Pearmanóó,€Tenn.€App.€1989,€781€S.W.2d€585.ÌÌà àThis€Court€concurs€in€all€of€the€above€findings€of€the€Trial€Court,€and€also€finds€thatÏthe€efforts€of€plaintiffs€to€impeach€the€character€of€Dr.€McCay€were€not€sufficiently€supported.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€dismissing€these€suits€are€affirmed.€€Costs€of€thisÏappeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiffs.€€The€causes€are€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€furtherÏnecessary€proceedings.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔAFFIRMED€AND€€REMANDEDÔ€XÔó óÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌœCONCUR€IN€SEPARATE€OPINION:›ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ