WPC) bۋ;,T{ǚ:FM?q಺p|ּ$vU7,>yÀ Y(mȺ͑,!L~K06ڤ x wTNطjOl0фyLl ae $j4x +)#mx˹ڗB/]Pd`6 !^5/?:ua89H@FVԈbƗi_ K5yFGa?34#(B%>Q0F|Z[gڻԒb߀&dɰea_#=ʩ !w"CN֘7#zL%@&[@(୼T.d!sX*gV9/g#ޡ%m´%+q}PA=y۟&}캓#3!FEh05I WKEQC:Ʒp}Δu5# UN %? 0`EUFw@4+?N 0= 0 D AQD   % UFUFTUFUF&('ZUFnUFUNHPUF1 BwUFU F! 'A UFh!UF!UF!UF:""UF%UF%UF &S& 0D' 0D]' 0D' D/' B(1( D33)U:f)HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(8$ X< ,9Z .Courier New Regular    D     D ӀkDJ&3|x     6@ @X!X XXX `   7    Tenn.CodeAnn.506114(Supp.1998)states: Nocontract   oragreement,writtenorimplied,orrule,regulationorotherdevice,shallinanymatteroperatetorelieveanyemployerin 8   wholeorinpartofanyobligationcreatedbythischapterexceptashereinprovided.TheCourthasstatedthatretaliatorydischargeisconsideredaprohibited device.X XX!X Clantonv.Cain 8  SloanCo.,677S.W.2d441,445(Tenn.1984).#!X XXX K#(s(24$ ! X  !X?XXX `   0  (#$  0  ,-./0C<< C ~X XXX   6@ @X!X XXX  `   8    Tenn.CodeAnn.98307(a)(1)(K)(i)states,inpertinent   part,that [s]ection506114shallapplytoworkerscompensationclaimsagainstthestate.  ]$X `   5    X{XXXNoaspectoftheworkerscompensationclaimisincludedin   thisappeal.4.Courier New Regular< ,9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<09Z .Courier New Regular X{XXX   ]@ @X `   4    TheClaimsCommissionhasjurisdictionoverworkers   compensationclaimsbystateemployeesbyvirtueofTenn.CodeAnn.98307(a)(1)(K)(1991&Supp.1998),whichstates:#XxXXX{#X{XXXx The 8  commissionoreachcommissionersittingindividuallyhasexclusivejurisdictiontodetermineallmonetaryclaimsagainstthestatefallingwithinone(1)ormoreofthefollowingcategories:...(K)Workerscompensationclaimsbystateemployees....#XxXXX{#   X?XXX  4@ @X!X?XXX? `   2    Tenn.CodeAnn.98402(a)(1991&Supp.1998)states: The   claimantmustgivewrittennoticeoftheclaimantsclaimtothedivisionofclaimsadministrationasaconditionprecedenttorecovery....   6$X!X XXX `   5    X XX!X X XXX Noaspectoftheworkerscompensationclaimisincludedin   thisappeal. &X?XXX   4@ @X!X?XX&X? `   3    PursuanttoitsauthorityunderTenn.CodeAnn.98402(c),   theDivisionofClaimsAdministrationdeterminedthattheState b   shouldpaymedicalexpensesfortheAugust24thinjury.TheDivisiondeniedalaterclaimforadditionalbenefitsfiledbytheplaintiff. PX XXX   6@ @X!X XXX  `   6    Tenn.CodeAnn.830328(1993&Supp.1998)providesfor   grievanceproceduresundertheCivilServiceCommission.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular< ,9Z .Courier New Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  ]$X `   5    X{XXX X{XXX{Noaspectoftheworkerscompensationclaimisincludedin   thisappeal. X?XXX   4@ @X!X?XXX? `   1    OralargumentwasheardinthiscaseonOctober15,1998,in   Clarksville,Tennessee,aspartofthisCourtsS.C.A.L.E.S.(SupremeCourtAdvancingLegalEducationforStudents)project.#XE XX!X?#X?XXXE <4 9Z .Courier New Regular d< ,9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular X XXX   6@ @X!X XXX  `   4    TheClaimsCommissionhasjurisdictionoverworkers   compensationclaimsbystateemployeesbyvirtueofTenn.CodeAnn.98307(a)(1)(K)(1991&Supp.1998),whichstates:#X<XX!X #X XXX< The 8  commissionoreachcommissionersittingindividuallyhasexclusivejurisdictiontodetermineallmonetaryclaimsagainstthestatefallingwithinone(1)ormoreofthefollowingcategories:...(K)Workerscompensationclaimsbystateemployees....#X<XXX #   6$X$X{XXX `   5    %X{XX!X{'X{XXX{Noaspectoftheworkerscompensationclaimisincludedin   thisappeal.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<09Z .Courier New Regular< ,9Z .Courier New Regular )X XXX   6@ @X*X XX X  `   7    Tenn.CodeAnn.506114states: nocontractor   agreement,writtenorimplied,norule,regulationorotherdeviceshall,inanymatter,operatetorelieveanyemployerinwholeor 8  p inpartofanyobligationcreatedbythischapterexceptashereinprovided.TheCourthasstatedthatretaliatorydischargeisconsideredaprohibited device.+X XX!X Clantonv.CainSloanCo.,677 8  S.W.2d441,445(Tenn.1984).#*X XXX ^#<09Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular< ,9Z .Courier New RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  11' dxdP Pd -"  4XC5XXX4|X4XC5   Ad FILED4XC5X4|  March1,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh 'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular ! X    $XX  7?XXdXXd7XE X$  X?XXXE     TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T r 23<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  rߛ @*(#@@  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE   >@tt)DATNASHVILLE 8   ̜@$D (HEARDINCLARKSVILLE)  f  ̛ -XXcp(#XX-DIANAMORRIS,    h    c   ) p FORPUBLICATION .   `     h    c   ) ` Plaintiff/Appellant, c   ) p FILED:MARCH 1 8 ,1999 N   `     h    c   )#g\XX?#X?Xg\ $  v. `     h    c   ) p X?XXX?TENNESSEECLAIMSCOMMISSION#X?XXX?##g\XX?*#X?Xg\    `     h    c   )STATEOFTENNESSEE, h    c   )HON.W.R.BAKER,COMMISSIONER 2   `     h    c   ) ` Defendant/Appellee.   c   )X?XXX? p NO.01S019804BC00076#X?XXX?##g\XX?C#X?Xg\ R X?XXX?ForAppellant:   h    c   ForAppellee: :" BILLHODDE h    c   JOHNKNOXWALKUP #Z Madison,TN   h    c   AttorneyGeneralandReporter $0  `     h    c   MICHAELE.MOORE `     h    c   SolicitorGeneral `     h    c   MICHAELW.CATALANO `     h    c   AssociateSolicitorGeneral `     h    c   Nashville,TN `     h    c   @,DOPINION 2f(0 #X?XXX? ##g\XX?j #X?Xg\<,X7!XXXcp(#X<ӜAFFIRMED    h    c     BIRCH,J.#g\XX? #  x:/9 X?Xg\ `  ThiscaserequiresustodeterminewhethertheTennessee   ClaimsCommissionhassubjectmatterjurisdictionoveractionsfiledagainsttheStateforthetortofretaliatorydischarge.X?XXX?  #  1      #X?XXX?#Ԁ  X BecauseweconcludethattheClaimsCommissiondoesnothavesuchjurisdiction,thejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsvacatingtheClaimsCommissionsawardanddismissingtheretaliatorydischargeactionisaffirmed. `    I   `  TheplaintiffwasemployedasanaccountclerkinthepharmacyattheTennesseeStatePrisoninNashville.OnAugust24,1990,shefellandstruckherheadonthecornerofherdesk.ϛAfterrecuperatingfortheweekendathome,theplaintiffattemptedtoreturntoworkthefollowingMondaymorningbutcouldnotdosobecauseherheadwasswollen.Althoughshe calledineverydayafterthis,theplaintiffremainedoutofworkduetocontinuingproblemsfromherheadinjury.TheplaintifffilednoticeofherϜclaimforworkerscompensationbenefitswiththeDivisionofClaimsAdministrationonSeptember26,1990.  #  2      ׀Shewassubsequently P*& terminatedonOctober10,1990,withouteverhavingreturnedtowork.2  #  3       -#* Ї `  OnOctober15,1992,theplaintifffiledaformalcomplaintintheClaimsCommissionseekingworkerscompensationbenefits. "   #  4      ׀Inthepetition,sheallegedalsothathertermination  X fromstateemploymentwasthedirectresultofherhavingfiledapetitionforworkerscompensationbenefits.Forthisallegedretaliatorydischarge,theplaintiffsoughtdamagesintheamountof$300,000. `  TheClaimsCommission,inanorderenteredDecember8,1993,awardedworkerscompensationbenefitstotheplaintiff.     #         #  5      ׀In   asubsequentorderdatedJanuary26,1995,theClaimsCommission,assertingitssubjectmatterjurisdiction,overruledtheStatesmotiontodismisstheretaliatorydischargeactionandproceededtohearthematter.TheCommissiondeterminedthat [theclaimant]hasfactuallyandlegallyestablishedthatshewasdischargedbecauseshefiledaworkerscompensationclaim.TheCommissionlaterheardevidenceondamagesandenteredjudgmentfortheplaintiffagainsttheStateintheamountof$300,000.  ($  `  TheCourtofAppealsvacatedthejudgment.Inits opinion,thecourtstated : 񛀜     W [w] eneednotbelaborthepointnorengageinanalysiswherenoneisrequire[d].TheTennesseeClaimsCommissioniswithoutjurisdictiontoentertainclaimsagainsttheStatefordamagesforthetortofretaliatorydischarge.  II   `  Asapreliminarymatter,becausetheStateissovereign,suitmaybebroughtagainsttheStateonlyinsuchamannerandinsuchcourtsasthelegislaturemaybylawdirect.Tenn.Const.art.I,17.InMay1984,theGeneralAssemblyenactedlegislationcreatingtheTennesseeClaimsCommission.ActofMay24,1984,ch.972,1984Tenn.Pub.Acts1026(codifiedasamendedatTenn.CodeAnn.98301to30 7 9 (1992&Supp.1998)).ThislegislationauthorizedthefilingofsuitsagainsttheStateundercertainconditionsandbestowedexclusivejurisdictionoverseveralenumeratedcategoriesofclaimsontheClaimsCommission.TheCommissionsjurisdictionislimitedasspecifiedintheAct;thus,itsjurisdictioncannotbealteredexceptbytheGeneralAssembly.Hillv.Beeler,199Tenn.325,32829,X XXX Ԁ286S.W.2d868,869#X XXX #Ԁ(1956) +p!( (legislativeactsconferringjurisdictionupontheBoardofClaimstoadjudicateclaimsagainsttheStateofTennesseemustbestrictlyconstrued). `  Asstated,theissuepresentedforourreviewiswhethertheClaimsCommissionhassubjectmatterjurisdictiontohearanddeterminesuitsforretaliatorydischargefiledbyformerstate 7$-6 employees.Theplaintiffcontendsthatjurisdictionisderivedfromthreesources,thefirstofwhichisTenn.CodeAnn.98307(a)(1). `  TennesseeCodeAnnotated98307(a)(1)confersjurisdictionontheTennesseeClaimsCommission todetermineallmonetaryclaimsagainstthestatebasedontheactsoromissionsofstateemployees....ThestatuteliststhetypesofclaimsϛthatmaybebroughtbeforetheClaimsCommission.Thetortofretaliatorydischargeisnotincludedonthislist. `  TheplaintiffcontendsthatthesecondsourceofjurisdictionistheprovisionsofTenn.CodeAnn.98310 (Supp  .1998),whic ,whic hstate s :X XXX   (a) Anentityofstategovernmentmaynot H  terminateastateemployeeforfilingaworkerscompensationclaimwiththeclaimscommission. (b) Anyemployeeterminatedforfilingaworkerscompensationclaimmayfileagrievanceinaccordancewith830328,allegingaviolationofsubsection(a).#X XXX $#ԀThelanguageofthisstatute,onitsface,clearlydoesnot ($ authorizearetaliatorydischargeactiontobefiledwiththeClaimsCommission.Instead,theremedyprovidedforretaliatorydischargeforastateemployeewhoisterminatedforfilingaworkerscompensationclaimwiththeClaimsCommissionistoutilizethegrievanceprocedureinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.830328.  #  6      ׀Underthisstatute,theCivilServiceCommissionmay 2 (0 ordertheemployeetobereinstated,ormadewhole,orboth, X4)2 withoutlossofpayorbenefits.Tenn.CodeAnn.830328(e).TheCivilServiceCommissionmayalsoawardattorneysfeesandcoststoasuccessfulappealingemployee.Tenn.CodeAnn.830328(f).X XXX  `  Despitetheadmittedlyclearandunambiguouslanguageof \  Tenn.CodeAnn.98310#X XXX )#X XXX ,theplaintiffcontendsthatthe   legislativehistoryrevealstheintentoftheGeneralAssemblytoinvesttheClaimsCommissionwithsubjectmatterjurisdictionoverretaliatorydischargeactions.#X XXX *#Whenthelanguageofanactis   clearandunambiguous,resorttothelegislativehistoryisordinarilyunwarranted.SeeAndersonv.Outland,360S.W.2d44,47 d (Tenn.1962)(statingthat [w]herethewordsofastatuteareclearandplainandfullyexpressthelegislativeintent,thereisnoroomtoresorttoauxiliaryrulesofconstruction.).Asstatedabove,wefindthelanguageofTenn.CodeAnn.98310tobeclearandunambiguous;thus,thereisnoneedtoresorttothelegislativehistory. `  Forthethirdsource,theplaintiffcontendsthattheClaimsCommissionsjurisdictionoverretaliatorydischargeactionsvestsbyvirtueofitsexpressjurisdictionoverworkerscompensationclaimsfiledbystateemployees.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. T/$, 98307(a)(1)(K).Itistruethattheworkerscompensationlawprohibitingretaliatorydischargeasadevicetoavoidcompensationclaims   (  #  7      כisapplicabletotheStateunderTenn.CodeAnn.98 X4)2 307(a)(1)(K)(i).  #  8      ׀However,itdoesnotfollow,astheplaintiff   contends,thatjurisdictionoveraretaliatorydischargeactionistherebyconferredontheClaimsCommission.InVanCleavev.McKee  X BakingCo.,712S.W.2d94,95(Tenn.1986),thisCourtspecifically  heldthataretaliatorydischargeactionisacommonlawtortclaimthatisaseparatecauseofactionfromaworkerscompensationclaim.Becauseitisaseparatetortaction,thetwoclaimscannotbejoinedtogether.SeeSmithv.LincolnBrassWorksInc.,712 @  S.W.2d470,472(Tenn.1986)( Aclaimfordamagesforretaliatorydischargeisatortactionandcannotbejoinedwithaworkerscompensationclaim.).Thus,aretaliatorydischargeactionagainsttheStatemusthaveitsownbasisofjurisdictionintheClaimsCommissionseparateandapartfromtheClaimsCommissionsjurisdictionoverworkerscompensationclaims.X XXX #X XXX 4#  III #    `   `  Becauseactionsforretaliatorydischargeareseparatetortactionsfromworkerscompensationcases,andbecausetheGeneralAssemblyhasnotexpresslyorimplicitlyincludedsuchactionswithintheClaimsCommissionsstatutoryjurisdiction,weholdthattheClaimsCommissiondoesnothavesubjectmatterjurisdictionovertheseactions. T/$, Ӝ̛ `  ThejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisaffirmed.Thecostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheplaintiff.7 `     h    c _______________________________ `     h    c ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,Justice̜CONCUR:Anderson,C.J.Drowota,Holder,Barker,JJ.̛