ÿWPCÆE Å# ÖUNá %/ 0 &5U:[ 0D•w@Ù4-<b< 0JD 0TŽ 0^â 0h@ 0r¨ 0| 0†– 0 1u¬ 0d!!…! B!U >ª!U*è!U*"+<"bg&Ho&¹·)Ÿp,/·3?Í6¢ 9v~®;vÓ,= 0 ÇÿB˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(þ4x$¡¡ÑP °ÑÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ€$ÑÑ7€ÕwXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€XcXXXÔ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÷øEùúUûEüýDþÿ_e#„!òòè 3|x- ù-2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times< Œ 9p`(Arial !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ P ÑÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€There€is€disagreement€among€the€federal€courts€as€to€whether€plaintiffs€must€prove€"respondeatÏsuperior"€where€a€plaintiff€alleges€the€actions€of€a€supervisor€constituted€hostile€work€environment€sexualÏharassment.€€òòPierce€v.€Commonwealth€Life€Ins.€Coóó.,€40€F.3d€796,€803€(6th€Cir.€1994).€€In€this€case,€the€CourtÏof€Appeals,€in€dicta,€stated€that€plaintiffs€are€required€to€prove€respondeat€superior€in€supervisor€hostile€workÏenvironment€cases.€€Because€we€conclude€the€plaintiff's€action€is€time„barred,€we€find€it€unnecessary€toÏreach€that€issue€and€reserve€decision€for€a€case€in€which€the€issue€is€squarely€presented.Ì- ù- >Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ P ÑÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€òòFerguson€v.€E.I.€duPont€de€Nemours€&€Co.,€Inc.óó,€560€F.€Supp.€1172,€1189,€n.€37€(D.C.€Del.Ï1983);€€òòDumas€v.€Town€of€Mount€Vernonóó,€612€F.2d€974,€977€(5th€Cir.€1980);€Ramona€L.€Paetzold€and€AnneÏM.€O'Leary„Kelly,€òòContinuing€Violations€and€Hostile€Environment€Sexual€Harassment:€When€is€Enough,ÏEnough?óó,€31€Am.€Bus.€L.J.€365,€382€(1993)€(Hereafter€"òòContinuing€Violationsóó€at€___.").Ì ¯Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ P ÑÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„101(a)(1)€(1991€Repl.);€òòBennettóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€121;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€4„21„311€(1995€Supp.),€which€apparently€applies€the€continuing€violation€doctrine€in€theÏcontext€of€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act.€Ì •Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ P ÑÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€òòContinuing€Violationsóó€at€383;€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòHaithcock€v.€Frankóó,€958€F.2d€671,€678€(6th€Cir.€1992);ÏòòDixon€v.€Andersonóó,€928€F.2d€212,€216€(6th€Cir.€1991);€òòPenton€Indus.€Pub.€Co.,€Inc.óó,€851€F.2d€at€838.Ì ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ P ÑÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBazemore€v.€Fridayóó,€478€U.S.€385,€394„95,€106€S.Ct.€3000,€3006,€92€L.Ed.2d€315Ï(1986)€(current€and€continuing€differential€between€the€wages€earned€by€black€workers€and€those€earned€byÏwhite€workers);€òòHeld€v.€Gulf€Oil€Co.óó,€684€F.2d€427,€430€(6th€Cir.€1982)€(different€and€more€burdensomeÏworkload€given€to€female€than€to€male€which€continued€after€the€original€discriminatory€act);€òòHall€v.€Ledex,ÏInc.óó,€669€F.2d€397,€398€(6th€Cir.€1982)€(additional€and€more€burdensome€duties€assigned€to€female€withinÏthe€statute€of€limitations)(alternative€holding).Ì ­Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ P ÑÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€The€General€Assembly€recently€amended€the€THRA€to€add€a€statute€of€limitations,€€òòseeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€4„21„311€(1995€Supp.),€which€apparently€incorporates€the€continuing€violation€exception€andÏrequires€that€a€claim€be€filed€ð ðwithin€one€year€after€the€alleged€discriminatory€practice€ceases.ðð€€This€case,Ïhowever,€is€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„104(a),€which€contains€different€language,€since€the€newÏlaw€did€not€become€effective€until€May€22,€1992,€after€accrual€of€Spicerððs€claim.Ì 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ P ÑÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€The€plaintiff's€claim€of€retaliatory€discharge€against€Baker€was€concluded€by€a€voluntary€dismissalÏand€is€not€a€subject€of€this€appeal.Ì ˜Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ P ÑÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€òòSeeóó€òòDeGrace€v.€Rumsfeldóó,€614€F.2d€796,€804€(1st€Cir.€1980);€òòWeiss€v.€United€Statesóó,€595€F.ÏSupp.€1050,€1056€(E.D.€Va.€1984);€òòSilverberg€v.€Baxter€Healthcare€Corp.óó,€52€Fair€Empl.€Prac.€Cas.€1848Ï(N.D.€Ill.€1990).ÌPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò(t+2·á$¤¤Ý ƒ4x!ÝÑP °ÑÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€$ÑÑ7€…XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€XC‡XXXÔÝ  ÝÑÀP ÑÑÌ` ÑÒ4ÒÒ„„ÒÔ€ò\ÙòXXC‡Ôò òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóó óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÑ P ÑÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ ° ÑÑ€ $ÑÑ7€…XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€!!XÐd&Óà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€ò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óóóÌÌJUDY€G.€SPICER,à àà àà àà à)à àò òòòFiled:€€€October€28,€1996ó óóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€DAVIDSON€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ROBERT€S.€BRANDT,ÌBEAMAN€BOTTLING€COMPANY,à à)à àà à€€CHANCELLORÌBOB€BAKER,€andà àà àà àà à)ÌDON€HOLLINGSHEAD,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)à à€No.€01„S„01„9508„CH„00140Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€Appellees:ó óóóÌÌJoyce€M.€Grimesà àà àà àà àJames€W.€Cameron,€IIIÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àD.€Alexander€FardonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLeilani€Boulware€SouthardÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHARWELL€HOWARD€HYNE€GABBERTÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€&€MANNER,€P.C.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€"„Ôò òà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€"XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€J.ÇÓÓ›Ñ7€C‡XXdìXXdì7Ñà àIn€this€appeal,€we€are€asked€to€determine€whether€the€plaintiffððs€action€under€theÏTennessee€Human€Rights€Act€was€timely€filed€within€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations.€ÏThe€trial€court€held€that€a€hostile€environment€existed€which€did€not€end€until€plaintiff'sÏtermination,€and€that€therefore€her€claim€of€sexual€harassment€was€not€barred.€€TheÏCourt€of€Appeals€reversed,€holding€that€no€act€of€sexual€harassment€occurred€within€theÏone„year€period,€and€that€the€alleged€retaliatory€actions€did€not€extend€the€statute€underÏthe€continuing€violation€exception€to€the€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà àResolution€of€this€case€requires€an€examination€of€the€continuing€violationÏdoctrine€first€developed€by€the€federal€courts€in€their€interpretation€of€analogous€federalÏanti„discrimination€legislation.€€It€is€an€issue€of€first€impression€in€this€jurisdiction.€€ÌÌà àAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€relevant€case€law,€we€adopt€the€continuing€violationÏdoctrine€which€allows€a€plaintiff€to€challenge€an€ongoing,€continuous€series€ofÏdiscriminatory€acts€in€their€entirety€as€long€as€one€of€those€discriminatory€acts€falls€withinÏthe€limitations€period.€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€however,€the€record€establishes€that€all€acts€of€sexual€harassmentÏoccurred€more€than€one€year€before€the€plaintiff€commenced€this€action.€€Accordingly,Íthe€continuing€violation€doctrine€does€not€apply€and€the€plaintiff's€action€is€time„barred.€ÏThe€Court€of€Appeals'€judgment€is,€therefore,€affirmed.€ÌÇà@ àòòò òBACKGROUNDóóó ó€Ìà àJudy€G.€Spicer€was€employed€as€a€quality€control€technician€for€defendant,ÏBeaman€Bottling€Company,€from€July€9,€1990,€until€her€discharge€on€June€27,€1991.€ÏSpicer€was€responsible€for€starting€a€bottling€line€each€morning,€monitoring€the€finishedÏproduct€passing€by€at€a€rate€of€500€units€per€minute,€controlling€the€product€content,Ïperforming€a€battery€of€tests€on€the€product€about€every€thirty€minutes€to€ensureÏcompliance€with€the€quality€and€safety€guidelines,€and€documenting€in€writing€the€testsÏand€their€results.ÌÌà àDon€Hollingshead€supervised€Spicer,€and€at€some€point€after€her€employment,Ïhe€began€to€ask€her€out€on€dates.€€She€refused€to€go€out€with€him,€and€after€her€firstÏrejection€of€his€advances,€Spicer€said€that€Hollingshead€asked€her€out€more€frequently.€ÏOn€at€least€one€occasion,€he€grabbed€her,€told€her€that€he€thought€she€"would€kiss€good"Ïand€that€"she€would€be€good."€€€She€continued€to€refuse€his€advances€and€advised€himÏthat€she€did€not€wish€to€go€out€with€him.€€He€made€other€sexual€comments€thatÏembarrassed€her€and€made€her€feel€uncomfortable.€€Finally,€on€May€14,€1991,€whileÏSpicer€was€in€the€window„walled€product€testing€laboratory,€Hollingshead€grabbed€herÏand€pulled€her€towards€him.€€She€asked€him€to€stop,€pulled€away€from€him,€€and€walkedÏaway.ÌÌà àAfter€this€episode,€Spicer€immediately€complained€to€Tony€Kowalski,€theÏproduction€manager€at€Beaman,€who€reported€the€complaint€to€Bob€Baker,€Beaman'sÏoperations€manager.€€Baker€called€both€Spicer€and€Hollingshead€into€his€office.€€BakerÏtestified€that€Spicer€did€not€complain€to€him€at€that€time€about€sexual€harassment,€butÏsaid€only€that€Hollingshead€had€grabbed€her€arm,€was€picky,€and€did€not€trust€her.€ÏBaker€harshly€reprimanded€Hollingshead€for€grabbing€Spicer's€arm€and€advised€SpicerÏthat€she€needed€to€listen€to€her€supervisor.ÌÌà àSpicer€was€not€satisfied€with€Baker's€response,€and€after€reviewing€the€sexualÏharassment€policy€in€her€employee€handbook,€she€met€the€following€day€with€LonnieÏHillis,€Beaman's€director€of€personnel.€€She€told€Hillis€about€Hollingshead's€frequentÏrequests€for€dates€and€his€unwelcome€touches.€€At€the€end€of€the€meeting,€Spicer€gaveÏHillis€a€handwritten€statement€in€which€she€recounted€the€acts€of€sexual€harassment€byÏHollingshead.ÌÌà àHillis€investigated€Spicer's€complaint€and€interviewed€fourteen€co„workers.€€HisÏinvestigation€showed€that€Hollingshead€had€asked€Spicer€to€meet€him€at€a€country„western€bar€to€dance;€that€Hollingshead€had€grabbed€Spicer€by€the€arm€or€sleeve€asÏshe€was€walking€away€from€him€on€May€14,€1991;€that€several€employees€thoughtÏSpicer€did€not€know€how€to€perform€her€job;€and€that€Hollingshead€had€allowed€SpicerÍto€be€away€from€work€and€to€arrive€late€or€leave€early€excessively.€€Although€Hillis€didÏnot€confirm€Spicer's€claim€of€sexual€harassment,€he€concluded€from€the€investigationÏthat€neither€Hollingshead€nor€Spicer€were€properly€performing€their€jobs.Ìà àÌà àHillis€testified€that€after€the€investigation,€he€gave€Hollingshead€a€written€warning,Ïplaced€him€on€a€thirty„day€probation,€and€advised€him€that€he€would€be€fired€if€he€did€notÏimprove€his€supervisory€performance€or€if€he€ever€touched€or€suggested€dancing€to€a€co„worker€again.€€ÌÌà àHillis€also€gave€Spicer€a€written€warning€for€poor€job€performance,€placed€her€onÏa€thirty„day€probation,€and€assigned€her€to€a€different€production€line€for€retraining€andÏevaluation.€ÌÌà àSpicer€testified€that€following€the€grabbing€incident€on€May€14,€1991,€the€sexualÏharassment€ended.€€She€testified€that€Hollingshead€instead€became€"mad€and€cold."€ÏSpicer's€co„workers€testified€that€prior€to€the€incident,€Hollingshead€had€shown€SpicerÏand€other€female€employees€preferential€treatment€by€allowing€them€to€leave€early€orÏcome€in€late€or€to€be€excessively€absent.€€After€the€incident,€however,€Spicer,€as€well€asÏher€co„workers,€testified€that€Hollingshead€made€everyone€work€harder€and€strictlyÏenforced€Beaman's€rules€and€policies.ÌÌà àAlthough€Spicer€previously€had€never€been€"written€up"€during€her€employmentÏwith€Beaman,€Hollingshead€gave€her€a€written€warning€on€June€5,€1991,€for€failing€toÏwear€a€baseball€cap€that€was€considered€part€of€her€uniform.€€She€was€also€givenÏwarnings€for€being€late€to€work€on€June€11,€12,€19€and€25,€1991.€€On€the€afternoon€ofÏJune€25,€1991,€Hollingshead€saw€that€Spicer€was€away€from€her€line€when€she€wasÏsupposed€to€be€performing€product€tests.€€Hollingshead€looked€for€her€and€had€herÏpaged.€€Eventually,€he€observed€Spicer€€returning€from€the€employee€parking€lot,€andÏwhen€he€inquired€as€to€where€she€had€been,€Spicer€said€she€had€gone€outside€whileÏthe€line€was€down€to€roll€up€the€windows€on€her€car.€€Spicer,€however,€had€previouslyÏtold€a€co„worker€that€she€needed€to€go€to€the€bank,€and€another€co„worker€toldÏHollingshead€that€he€had€seen€Spicer€driving€in€the€parking€lot.€€Suspicious,ÏHollingshead€checked€the€windows€on€Spicer's€car€and€found€the€driver's€side€windowÏwas€down.€€€When€confronted,€Spicer€admitted€that€not€all€the€required€tests€had€beenÏrun€on€her€line.€€Hollingshead€gave€Spicer€a€written€warning€for€violating€a€companyÏpolicy€by€leaving€without€notifying€her€supervisor€or€clocking€out.ÌÌà àHollingshead€then€reported€the€incident€to€Baker,€and€upon€investigation,€BakerÏdetermined€that€the€production€and€test€reports€for€Spicer's€line€showed€that€her€line€hadÏrun€from€2:47€p.m.€to€3:40€p.m.€without€anyone€performing€the€necessary€tests€on€1,400Ícases€of€soft€drink.€€Baker€confronted€Spicer,€concluded€that€she€was€being€untruthfulÏabout€her€absence,€and€after€consulting€with€Hillis€and€Beaman's€general€manager,ÏJohn€Cohea,€and€with€their€concurrence,€Baker€terminated€Spicer's€employment€onÏJune€27,€1991.ÌÌà àOn€June€22,€1992,€Spicer€filed€this€action€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€HumanÏRights€Act€against€defendants€Don€Hollingshead,€Bob€Baker,€and€Beaman€Bottling,Ïalleging€sexual€harassment,€retaliatory€discharge,€and€intentional€infliction€of€emotionalÏdistress.€€At€the€close€of€the€proof,€summarized€above,€the€Chancellor€submitted€aÏspecial€verdict€form€to€the€jury,€which€contained€the€following€questions:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à1)€Did€the€Defendant€Don€Hollingshead€sexually€harassÏthe€Plaintiff?ÌÌà8 àà8 à2)€When€he€discharged€the€plaintiff,€did€the€Defendant€BobÏBaker€retaliate€against€the€Plaintiff€because€sheÏcomplained€about€or€opposed€the€sexual€harassment?ÌÌà8 àà8 à3)€If€you€answered€Questions€1€or€2€"Yes,"€is€BeamanÏBottling€Company€liable€to€the€Plaintiff?"€andÌÌà8 àà8 à4)€If€you€answered€Questions€1€or€2€"Yes,"€fix€the€amount€ofÏdamages€to€be€awarded€to€the€Plaintiff.€ÌÌÌÓÓFollowing€deliberations,€the€jury€responded€to€Questions€1€and€3€in€the€affirmative,Ïreported€that€it€was€unable€to€reach€a€verdict€as€to€Question€2,€which€resulted€in€aÍmistrial€on€the€claim€of€retaliatory€discharge,€and€fixed€damages€in€the€amount€ofÏ$50,000€against€Hollingshead€and€Beaman€Bottling€Company€in€response€to€QuestionÏ4.€€The€Chancellor€entered€a€judgment€on€the€verdict,€and€the€plaintiff€took€a€voluntaryÏnonsuit€as€to€the€retaliatory€discharge€claim€against€Baker.€€Thereafter,€the€defendantsÏHollingshead€and€Beaman€Bottling€Company€appealed€the€jury's€verdict€in€favor€of€theÏplaintiff€on€her€claim€of€sexual€harassment.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Court€of€Appeals€concluded€that€the€last€act€of€sexual€harassmentÏoccurred€on€May€14,€1991,€more€than€one€year€before€the€plaintiff€filed€this€suit€on€JuneÏ22,€1992.€€€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€plaintiff's€action€was€time„barred.€ÏIn€so€holding,€the€Court€of€Appeals€rejected€Spicer's€claims€that€Hollingshead's€allegedÏretaliatory€actions€from€May16,€1991,€through€June27,€1991,€were€sufficient€to€establishÏthe€continuing€violation€exception€to€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€Court€of€AppealsÏemphasized€that€the€€plaintiff€admitted€that€she€violated€certain€rules€and€policies€ofÏBeaman,€and€that€it€was€these€violations€which€resulted€in€the€written€reprimands€sheÏchallenged.€€In€addition,€the€intermediate€court€observed€that€Spicer€testified€thatÏHollingshead,€from€May€16,€1991,€through€June€27,€1991,€made€everyone€work€harderÏand€comply€with€all€the€rules€and€policies€of€Beaman.€€Therefore,€the€Court€of€AppealsÏconcluded€"there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€plaintiff€was€singled€out€inÏthe€enforcement€of€these€rules€and€policies."€€Finally,€the€Court€of€Appeals€noted€that€theÍplaintiff€had€not€cited,€nor€had€research€revealed,€any€authority€to€support€her€claim€thatÏalleged€retaliatory€action€within€the€limitations€period€extends€the€time€for€filing€aÏcomplaint€alleging€hostile€work€environment€sexual€harassment,€all€acts€of€whichÏoccurred€outside€the€limitations€period.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€theÏtrial€court€and€dismissed€the€plaintiff's€case.ÌÌà àThereafter,€we€granted€permission€to€appeal,€and€for€the€reasons€articulatedÏbelow,€affirm€the€Court€of€Appeals'€judgment.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONTINUING€VIOLATION€DOCTRINEóóó óÌà àUnder€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€("THRA"),€it€is€unlawful€for€an€employerÏ"to€discriminate€against€an€individual€with€respect€to€compensation,€terms,€conditions,€orÏprivileges€of€employment€because€of€such€individual's€race,€creed,€color,€religion,€sex,Ïage,€or€national€origin."€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„401(a)(1)€(1991€Repl.).€€It€is€beyondÏdispute€that€the€THRA€applies€to€claims€of€employment€discrimination€on€the€basis€ofÏhostile€work€environment€sexual€harassment.€€òòCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corp.óó,€919ÏS.W.2d€26,€31€(Tenn.€1996).€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€hostile€work€environment€sexualÏharassment,€a€plaintiff€must€assert€and€prove€(1)€the€employee€was€a€member€of€aÏprotected€class;€(2)€the€employee€was€subjected€to€unwelcomed€sexual€harassment;€(3)Ïthe€harassment€occurred€because€of€the€employee's€gender;€(4)€the€harassmentÍaffected€a€"term,€condition€or€privilege"€of€employment;€and€(5)€the€employer€knew€orÏshould€have€known€of€the€harassment€and€failed€to€respond€with€prompt€andÏappropriate€corrective€action.× ƒ# ××  ×€€òòIdóó.€€We€emphasized€in€òòCampbellóó€that€the€conductÏunderlying€a€hostile€work€environment€claim€need€not€be€clearly€sexual€in€nature.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ32.€€The€key€inquiry€is€whether€an€employee€of€one€race€or€gender€is€subjected€toÏdisadvantageous€terms€or€conditions€of€employment€to€which€members€of€another€raceÏor€gender€are€not€exposed.€€òòIdóó.Ì€Ìà àAs€we€analyze€this€claim€under€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act,€we€think€itÏappropriate€to€examine€federal€case€law,€as€well€as€state€law,€since€the€stated€purposeÏand€intent€€of€the€Tennessee€Act€is€to€provide€for€execution€within€Tennessee€of€theÏpolicies€embodied€in€the€federal€anti„discrimination€acts€and€because€there€is€a€35„yearÏhistory€of€case€law€development€since€the€passage€of€Title€VII€of€the€Civil€Rights€Act.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„101(a)(1)€(1991€Repl.);€òòBennett€v.€Steiner„Liff€Iron€and€MetalÏCo.óó,€826€S.W.2d€119,€121€(Tenn.€1992).€ÌÌà àœStatutes›€of€limitations€for€actions€predicated€upon€employment€discrimination€areÏtriggered€and€commence€running€on€the€occurrence€of€the€alleged€discriminatory€act,Ïand€not€at€the€time€the€last€effects€of€the€discriminatory€act€have€been€manifested.€€òòSeeóóÏòòDelaware€State€College€v.€Ricksóó,€449€U.S.€250,€258,€101€S.Ct.€498,€504,€66€L.Ed.2d€431Ï(1980);€€òòE.E.O.C.€v.€Penton€Indus.€Pub.€Co.,€Inc.óó,€851€F.2d€835,€837€(6th€Cir.€1988).€€ÌÌà àThe€"continuing€violation€doctrine"€was€developed€by€federal€courts€in€the€lateÏ1960s€in€the€context€of€Title€VII€of€the€federal€Civil€Rights€Act€as€an€exception€to€theÏstatute€of€limitations€because€initially,€the€statutory€period€within€which€suits€had€to€beÏfiled€was€very€short€and€as€a€result,€many€potential€claims€were€barred.€€òòBell€v.ÏChesapeake€&€Ohio€Ry.€Co.óó,€929€F.2d€220,€223€(6th€Cir.€1991).€€This€doctrine€relieves€aÏplaintiff€from€the€burden€of€proving€that€the€entire€violation€occurred€within€the€limitationsÏperiod.€€To€establish€a€continuing€violation,€a€plaintiff€must€show€a€series€of€related€acts,Ïone€or€more€of€which€falls€within€the€limitations€period.€€òòBerry€v.€Board€of€Supervisors€ofÏL.S.U.óó,€715€F.2d€971,€979€(5th€Cir.€1983);€òòSelan€v.€Kileyóó,€969€F.2d€560,€564€(7th€Cir.Ï1992).ÌÌà àState€courts€adopting€the€continuing€violation€doctrine€enumerate€several€factorsÏthat€militate€against€strict€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€in€the€context€ofÏemployment€discrimination.€€òòSumner€v.€Goodyear€Tire€&€Rubber€Co.óó,€398€N.W.2d€368,Í377€(Mich.€1986).€€First,€they€emphasize€that€Title€VII€is€a€remedial€statute€designed€toÏeliminate€discrimination€and€make€parties€whole.€€Second,€they€stress€that€employeesÏare€generally€lay€people€and€are€unaware€that€they€must€act€quickly€or€risk€losing€theirÏcause€of€action.€€Often€employees€fear€reprisal€or€turn€to€others€for€help,€and€in€so€doing,Ïdelay€action€on€their€cause€until€the€statute€has€expired.€€Finally,€and€perhaps€mostÏimportantly,€those€courts€recognize€that€many€discriminatory€acts€cannot€be€viewed€asÏdiscrete€incidents,€and€often€unfold€rather€than€occur,€making€it€difficult€to€preciselyÏpinpoint€the€time€when€they€take€place.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àAlthough€application€of€the€continuing€violation€doctrine€is€not€always€clear€andÏsimple,× ƒ% ××  ×€there€appears€to€be€near€universal€agreement€as€to€the€abstract€legalÏformulation€of€the€doctrine.€€After€a€review€of€the€relevant€case€law,€we€find€persuasiveÏthe€rationale€supporting€the€continuing€violation€doctrine€and€adopt€it€in€Tennessee.× ƒ& ××  ×€ÏCourts€have€recognized,€however,€only€two€narrowly€limited€instances€in€which€theÏcontinuing€violation€doctrine€applies.€€The€first€category€arises€where€there€is€someÍevidence€of€òòpresentóó€discriminatory€activity€giving€rise€to€a€claim€of€a€continuingÏviolation,× ƒ' ××  ×€for€example€where€an€employer€continues€to€presently€impose€disparate€workÏassignment€or€pay€rates€between€similarly€situated€employee€groups.× ƒ( ××  ×€€Key€toÏestablishing€this€exception€is€proof€that€at€least€one€of€the€forbidden€discriminatory€actsÏoccurred€within€the€relevant€limitations€period.€€òòDixonóó,€928€F.2d€at€216.€€ÌÌà àThe€second€category€of€ð ðcontinuing€violationðð€arises€where€there€has€been€aÏlongstanding€and€demonstrable€policy€of€discrimination€such€as€an€established€andÏrepeated€pattern€of€paying€men€more€than€women.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòJanikowski€v.€BendixÏCorp.óó,€823€F.2d€945,€948€(6th€Cir.€1987).€€To€constitute€such€an€established€pattern,€theÏplaintiff€must€clearly€demonstrate€some€ð ðoverarching€policy€of€discrimination,ðð€and€notÏmerely€the€occurrence€of€an€isolated€incident€of€discriminatory€conduct.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€there€is€no€evidence€of€an€overarching€policy€of€discrimination;Ïtherefore,€we€have€reviewed€the€record€to€determine€if€there€is€evidence€to€support€aÍpresent€discriminatory€activity,€including€proof€that€at€least€one€of€the€discriminatoryÏpractices€occurred€within€the€relevant€limitations€period.€€Federal€courts€have€suggestedÏthree€factors€to€consider€in€determining€whether€the€discriminatory€conduct€amounts€to€aÏcontinuing€violation€or€whether€it€is€merely€discrete,€isolated,€and€completed€acts€whichÏare€individual€violations:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€first€is€subject€matter.€€Do€the€alleged€acts€involve€theÏsame€type€of€discrimination,€tending€to€connect€them€in€aÏcontinuing€violation?€€The€second€is€frequency.€€Are€theÏalleged€acts€recurring€(e.g.,€a€bi„weekly€paycheck)€or€moreÏin€the€nature€of€an€isolated€work€assignment€orÏemployment€decision?€€The€third€factor,€perhaps€of€mostÏimportance,€is€degree€of€permanence.€€Does€the€act€haveÏthe€degree€of€permanence€which€should€trigger€anÏemployeeððs€awareness€of€and€duty€to€assert€his€or€herÏrights,€or€which€should€indicate€to€the€employee€that€theÏcontinued€existence€of€the€adverse€consequences€of€theÏact€is€to€be€expected€without€being€dependent€on€aÏcontinuing€intent€to€discriminate?ÌÌÌÓÓòòBerryóó,€715€F.2d€at€981;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSelanóó,€969€F.2d€at€565,€n.€6€(collecting€cases).€€ÌÌà àWe€adopt€and€apply€these€factors€to€the€record€in€this€case.€€The€limitationsÏperiod€for€filing€suit€under€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€when€plaintiff€instituted€thisÏaction€was€contained€within€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð28„3„104(a),€which€required€that€suit€beÏfiled€within€one€year€of€the€alleged€unlawful€employment€practice.€€òòSeeóó€òòBennettóó,€826ÍS.W.2d€at€121.× ƒ) ××  ×€€Plaintiff€brought€this€action€on€June€22,€1992.€€Accordingly,€to€establishÏthat€her€suit€was€timely€filed,€plaintiff€had€to€show€that€some€discriminatory€act€of€sexualÏharassment€occurred€on€or€after€June€22,€1991.€ÌÌà àPlaintiff€conceded€at€trial€that€no€act€of€sexual€harassment€occurred€after€May€14,Ï1991.€€Though€the€alleged€discriminatory€actions€before€that€time€occurred€withÏfrequency,€they€did€not€extend€into€the€relevant€limitations€period.€€As€to€permanency,Ïplaintiff€obviously€understood€her€rights,€at€the€latest,€by€May15,€1991,€when,€afterÏreading€the€employee€handbook,€she€delivered€the€letter€to€Hillis€outlining€her€complaintÏof€sexual€harassment.€ÌÌà àPlaintiff€argues,€however,€that€the€actions€of€her€supervisor€in€giving€her€writtenÏreprimands,€and€Bakerððs€decision€to€terminate€her,€were€retaliatory€and€therefore€bringÏher€claim€within€the€applicable€limitations€period.€€We€disagree€for€several€reasons.€ÏFirst,€plaintiff€conceded€that€she€violated€the€rules€which€resulted€in€the€writtenÏreprimands,€and€that€she€alone€was€not€singled€out€and€treated€differently€than€the€otherÏemployees.€€Accordingly,€the€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€to€establish€that€the€writtenÍreprimands€or€Baker's€decision€to€discharge€were,€in€fact,€retaliatory.€€Moreover,€inÏdetermining€whether€a€continuing€violation€is€established,€courts€must€consider€whetherÏthe€alleged€acts€involve€the€same€type€of€discrimination.€€Here,€the€record€is€clear€thatÏthe€last€act€of€sexual€harassment€occurred€on€May€14,€1991.× ƒ* ××  ×€€Although€we€held€inÏòòCampbellóó€that€conduct€underlying€a€hostile€work€environment€claim€need€not€be€clearlyÏsexual€in€nature,€we€emphasized€that€an€employee€must€prove€that€she€was€subjected€toÏdisadvantageous€terms€or€conditions€of€employment€to€which€males€were€not€exposed.€ÏòòIdóó.€€Plaintiff€has€failed€to€meet€that€standard€as€to€her€supervisor's€actions€occurring€afterÏMay€14,€1991.€€Although€an€employer€certainly€cannot€use€an€employeeððs€diminishedÏwork€performance€as€a€legitimate€basis€for€removal€where€the€diminished€workÏperformance€is€the€direct€result€of€the€employerððs€discriminatory€behavior,× ƒ+ ××  ×€there€is€noÏevidence€in€this€record€that€the€violations€which€precipitated€plaintiffððs€terminationÏresulted€from€discriminatory€behavior€on€the€part€of€her€employer.€€Consequently,Ïplaintiff€has€failed€to€establish€a€continuing€violation€and€her€action€is€time„barred.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àFor€the€reasons€articulated€above,€we€adopt€the€continuing€violation€doctrineÏwhich€allows€a€plaintiff€to€challenge€an€ongoing,€continuous€series€of€discriminatory€actsÏin€their€entirety€as€long€as€one€of€those€discriminatory€acts€falls€within€the€limitationsÏperiod.€€Because€the€record€in€this€case€establishes€that€all€acts€of€sexual€harassmentÏoccurred€more€than€one€year€before€the€plaintiff€commenced€this€action,€the€continuingÏviolation€doctrine€does€not€apply€and€the€plaintiff's€action€is€time„barred.€€Accordingly,Ïthe€Court€of€Appeals'€judgment€is€affirmed.€€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff,ÏJudy€G.€Spicer,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€JusticeÌÌÌÌò òConcur:ó óÌBirch,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€and€White,€JJ.