ÿWPC©% …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0DP U:” 0JÎ 0T 0^l 0hÊ 0r2 0|¤ 0† 0¦ 1u6 0d« AM\Pw\Çî# BU>.U*lU*–B)ÀDCé D3, AM_ 0X¬cƒgê 0Æív~³vÓ1 AO$ÆS$ 0D% D/]% BŒ%˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- rsEtuUv·ewr‚x r‚y+zÓ€†ƒo!úÿÿú, ú3|x†(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular2 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€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òDecember€23,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó FÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWeber's€employment€with€Jefferson€Pilot€was€not€terminated.€€He€continued€as€anÏinsurance€sales€agent€for€approximately€two€or€three€months.Ì RÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„311€(Supp.€1996)(Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act);Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€28„3„104€(1980€Repl.€and€Supp.€1996)(retaliatory€discharge).Ì äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThis€Court€has€not€previously€addressed€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€statute€ofÏlimitations€which€became€effective€May€22,€1992.€€Prior€to€that€time,€the€general€one„year€tortÏstatute€of€limitations€governed€claims€under€the€Act.€€òòSpicer€v.€Beaman€Bottling€Co.óó,€__€S.W.2d€__Ï(Tenn.€1996).€€Ì d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Ò YÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€statute€of€limitations€also€adopts€the€ð ðcontinuing€violation€exceptionðð€which€weÏjudicially€adopted€and€explained€fully€in€òòSpiceróó,€òòsupra.óóÌ yÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWeber€also€urges€this€Court€in€his€brief€to€apply€the€principles€of€equitable€tolling€and/orÏequitable€estoppel€to€hold€that€his€action€is€timely.€€That€argument€is€without€merit.€€Tennessee€lawÏdoes€not€recognize€the€doctrine€of€equitable€tolling.€€òòNorton€v€.Everhartóó,€895€S.W.2d€317,€321Ï(Tenn.€1995).€Weberððs€claim€of€equitable€estoppel€was€raised€for€the€first€time€in€this€Court€and€isÏnot€supported€by€any€allegations€in€the€record.Ì ùÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóContrary€to€Weberððs€argument,€the€contract€provision€in€this€case€did€not€attempt€to€defineÏnotice€for€purposes€of€triggering€the€statute€of€limitations€for€statutory€or€common€law€tort€actionsÏarising€from€termination€of€the€contract.€€We,€therefore,€express€no€opinion€on€the€validity€or€effectÏof€such€provisions.Ì(v(2ÆÎ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ÓXXXÔÔ€ôY·ôXX¦ÓÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ , ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€&ÔÑ€ÑÑ7€_XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€&¼ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€''X°d&Óœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌò òà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€&XÔó óÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌBLAKE€WEBER,à àà àà àà à)à àò òFiled:ó ó€December€23,€1996Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)à àSHELBY€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€€D.J.€Allissandratos,Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àChancellorÌJACK€MOSES,€Individually,€and€à àà à)à àÌJEFFERSON€PILOT€LIFEà àà àà à)ÌINSURANCE€COMPANY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)à àNo.€02S01„9605„CH„00049ÌœßR€ )A1-j|Gg` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌòòÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌFOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTóó:à àòòà àFOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:óóÌÌGail€O.€Mathesà àà àà àà àRichard€H.€Allen,€Jr.ÌThe€Law€Office€of€Gail€O.€Mathesà àà àHeather€C.€WebbÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà0 àAllen,€Scruggs,€Sossaman€&ÏThompson,€P.C.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€Tennessee€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÔ€&„ÔÌÌà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€&XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.ÇÓÓà àIn€this€appeal,€we€must€determine€whether€the€one„year€limitationsÏperiod€for€an€action€under€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€and€for€retaliatoryÏdischarge€should€be€calculated€from€the€date€plaintiff€received€oral€notice€ofÏthe€defendantsðð€decision€to€terminate€his€sales€manager€contract€or€from€theÏdate€he€was€provided€written€notice€of€the€decision€in€accordance€with€hisÏwritten€employment€agreement.€€Based€on€its€determination€that€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€commenced€upon€the€plaintiffððs€receipt€of€oral€notice,€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€action€as€time„barred.ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€conclude€that€the€limitationsÏperiod€commenced€when€the€plaintiff€received€unequivocal€oral€notice€of€theÏdecision€to€terminate€his€sales€manager€contract.€€Accordingly,€the€judgmentÏof€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌØ ØÓ&€''X°d&ÓØ ØÓ&€''XÐd&Óà@ àò òòòBACKGROUNDóóó óÌà àIn€August€of€1990,€plaintiff€Blake€Weber€was€hired€by€defendantÏJefferson€Pilot€Life€Insurance€Company€both€as€the€sales€manager€for€theÏMemphis€office€and€as€an€insurance€sales€agent.€€Defendant,€Jack€MosesÏmanaged€the€Memphis€office€and€was€Weberððs€immediate€supervisor.€€BeforeÍbeginning€his€employment,€Weber€entered€into€a€sales€manager€contract€withÏJefferson€Pilot.€€Paragraph€7€of€the€contract€was€titled€ð ðTermination,ðð€andÏprovided€in€pertinent€part€that€ð ð[t]his€contract€may€be€terminated€on€writtenÏnotice€by€either€party€.€.€.€.ððÌÌà àIn€addition€to€managing€the€other€insurance€sales€agents€in€theÏMemphis€office,€in€his€capacity€as€sales€manager,€Weber€was€alsoÏresponsible€for€recruiting€new€agents.€€Weber€interviewed€potential€recruits,Ïsupervised€the€application€process,€administered€aptitude€tests,€and€uponÏcompletion€of€the€process,€provided€recommendations€to€his€superiorsÏregarding€the€applicantsðð€qualifications.ÌÌà àIn€July€of€1991,€Weber€alleges€that€he€was€advised€by€a€senior€vice„president€with€Jefferson€Pilot€not€to€hire€or€recommend€for€employment€anyÏblack€females.€€When,€in€the€spring€of€1992€a€black€female€applied€for€theÏposition€of€insurance€sales€agent,€Weber€accepted€and€processed€herÏapplication.€€Immediately€following€submission€of€her€application,€WeberÏasserts€that€he€began€experiencing€problems€within€the€company.ÌÌà àFollowing€a€meeting€in€Memphis€in€early€August€of€1992€with€PatÍWalden,€Jefferson€Pilotððs€regional€vice„president,€Moses€called€Weber€into€hisÏoffice€and€told€him€that€Jefferson€Pilot€had€decided€to€terminate€his€salesÏmanager€contract€effective€August€31,€1992.€€Thereafter,€in€a€letter€datedÏAugust€5,€1992€and€addressed€to€Walden€at€Jefferson€Pilotððs€home€office,ÏWeber€requested€reconsideration€of€the€termination€decision.€€Walden€toldÏWeber€in€a€phone€conversation€a€short€time€later€that€Moses€had€actuallyÏmade€the€decision€to€terminate€Weber's€sales€manager€contract.€€WhenÏapproached€by€Weber,€Moses€admitted€that€he€had€made€the€decision€toÏterminate€Weber's€contract,€and€that€he€had€the€authority€to€ð ðtake€backðð€€orÏrescind€the€decision;€however,€Moses€refused€to€reconsider€the€decision.€€As€aÏresult,€Weber's€sales€manager€contract€terminated€on€August€31,€1992.× ƒ! ××  ×€€OnÏor€after€September€1,€1992,€in€accordance€with€his€contract,€Weber€receivedÏwritten€notice€that€his€sales€manager€contract€had€been€terminated.€ÌÌà àOn€August€31,€1993,€Weber€filed€suit€against€the€defendants€allegingÏthat€his€contract€was€terminated€because€he€refused€to€follow€Jefferson€PilotððsÏpolicy€of€excluding€black€females€from€employment.€€Termination€of€hisÏcontract€for€that€reason,€Weber€alleged,€constitutes€a€discriminatory€practiceÍunder€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act,€which€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIt€shall€be€a€discriminatory€practice€for€a€person€orÏfor€two€(2)€or€more€persons:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)€to€retaliate€or€discriminate€in€any€mannerÏagainst€a€person€because€he€or€she€has€opposed€aÏpractice€declared€discriminatory€by€this€chapter.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„301€(1991€Repl.€&€Supp.€1996).€€Weber€also€allegedÏthat€€the€illegally€motivated€termination€of€his€contract€constitutes€retaliatoryÏdischarge€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„1„304€(1991€Repl.€&€Supp.€1996),Ïwhich€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€No€employee€shall€be€discharged€or€terminatedÏsolely€for€refusing€to€participate€in,€or€for€refusing€toÏremain€silent€about,€illegal€activities.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€As€used€in€this€section,€"illegal€activities"€meansÏactivities€which€are€in€violation€of€the€criminal€orÏcivil€code€of€this€state€or€the€United€States€or€anyÏregulation€intended€to€protect€the€public€health,Ïsafety€or€welfare.€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(c)€Any€employee€terminated€in€violation€ofÏsubsection€(a)€shall€have€a€cause€of€action€againstÏthe€employer€for€retaliatory€discharge€and€any€otherÏdamages€to€which€the€employee€may€be€entitled.ÌÓÓÌà àDefendants€moved€to€dismiss€the€action,€alleging€that€the€claims€wereÏtime„barred€because€the€complaint€had€been€filed€on€August€31,€1993,Íbeyond€the€applicable€one„year€limitations€period× ƒ" ××  ×€which€had€commenced€onÏor€before€August€5,€1992,€when€Weber€received€oral€notice€that€his€contractÏwas€terminated.ÌÌà àRelying€upon€the€contract,€Weber€argued€that€the€statute€did€not€beginÏto€run€until€he€was€given€written€notice€of€termination.€€In€an€affidavit,€WeberÏstated:ÌÓÓà8 àMy€contract€with€Jefferson€Pilot€provided€that€a€terminationÏdecision€must€be€in€writing.€€I€therefore€continued€to€hope€that€IÏwould€not€be€terminated€until€I€received€written€verification€of€myÏtermination€as€sales€manager.€€I€continued€working€as€aÏJefferson€Pilot€sales€manager€until€August€31,€1992,€and€did€notÏreceive€written€verification€of€my€termination€until€afterÏSeptember€1,€1992.Ì€€€ÌÌÓÓà àThe€trial€judge€granted€the€defendants'€motion€and€dismissed€theÏaction.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€dismissal,€finding€that€oral€notice€ofÏcontract€termination€is€sufficient€for€purposes€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€WeÏgranted€plaintiffððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal,€and€for€the€reasonsÏexplained€below,€now€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals.ÌÌà@ àòòò òSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWóóó óÌà àThe€issue€presented€in€this€appeal€is€a€question€of€law€raised€by€theÏmotion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€timely€file€within€the€applicable€limitationsÏperiod.€€Consequently,€taking€all€allegations€of€fact€in€the€plaintiffððs€complaintÏas€true,€we€review€the€lower€courtsðð€legal€conclusions€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€noÏpresumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòOwens€v.€Truckstops€ofÏAmericaóó,€915€S.W.2d€420,€424€(Tenn.€1996);€òòCook€v.€Spinnakers€of€Rivergate,ÏInc.óó,€878€S.W.2d€934,€938€(Tenn.€1994).€€ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òCOMMENCEMENT€OF€THE€STATUTE€OF€LIMITATIONSóóó óÌà@ àò òA.€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Actó óÌà àAn€action€under€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€must€be€ð ðfiled€inÏchancery€or€circuit€court€within€one€(1)€year€after€the€alleged€discriminatoryÏpractice€ceases.€.€.€.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„311€(Supp.€1996).× ƒ# ××  ×€To€answerÏthe€question€of€commencement,€therefore,€we€must€first€identify€the€allegedÏdiscriminatory€practice.€€Here,€Weber€alleges€that€Jefferson€Pilot€terminatedÍhis€contract€because€he€opposed€and€refused€to€participate€in€the€companyððsÏpolicy€of€race€and€sex€discrimination,€a€policy€that€is€unlawful€under€theÏTennessee€Human€Rights€Act.€€Therefore,€he€alleges€that€the€decision€toÏterminate€his€contract€constituted€a€discriminatory€practice.ÌÌà àHaving€identified€the€discriminatory€practice,€we€must€next€determineÏthe€date€on€which€the€discriminatory€practice€ended.€This€is€the€pivotal€issueÏon€appeal.€€Weber€argues€that€the€discriminatory€practice€did€not€cease€untilÏhe€received€òòwrittenóó€notice€pursuant€to€his€employment€contract.€€In€contrast,Ïthe€defendants€argue€that€the€alleged€discriminatory€practice,€the€decision€toÏterminate€Weberððs€contract,€was€completed€and€ended€in€early€August€whenÏWeber€was€orally€advised€by€his€immediate€supervisor.€ÌÌà àThe€stated€purpose€and€intent€of€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€is€toÏprovide€for€execution,€within€Tennessee,€of€the€policies€embodied€in€theÏanalogous€federal€anti„discrimination€laws.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„101(a)(1)Ï(1991€Repl.).€€Consequently,€as€we€have€previously€held,€it€is€appropriate€toÏexamine€federal€law€when€analyzing€issues€under€the€Tennessee€HumanÏRights€Act.€€òòBennett€v.€Steiner„Liff€Iron€and€Metal€Co.óó,€826€S.W.2d€119,€121Ï(Tenn.€1992).€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€we€begin€our€analysis€of€the€question€of€what€constitutesÏcessation€of€the€alleged€discriminatory€practice€with€two€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€decisions€which€addressed€the€commencement€of€theÏlimitations€period€in€employment€discharge€actions.€€In€òòDelaware€StateÏCollege€v.€Ricksóó,€449€U.S.€250,€101€S.Ct.€498,€66€L.Ed.2d€431€(1980),€aÏfaculty€member€alleged€that€he€had€been€denied€academic€tenure€because€ofÏhis€national€origin.€€In€February,€1973,€the€faculty€tenure€committeeÏrecommended€that€Ricks€not€receive€a€tenured€position.€€The€tenureÏcommittee,€however,€agreed€to€reconsider€its€decision€the€following€year.€ÏUpon€reconsideration€in€February,€1974,€the€committee€adhered€to€its€earlierÏrecommendation,€and€on€March€13,€1974,€the€Board€of€Trustees€formallyÏvoted€to€deny€tenure€to€Ricks.ÌÌà àDissatisfied€with€the€decision,€Ricks€immediately€filed€a€grievance€withÏthe€Boardððs€grievance€committee,€which€in€May€of€1974€held€a€hearing€andÏtook€the€matter€under€advisement.€€During€the€pendency€of€the€matter,€theÏCollege€administration€continued€to€plan€for€Ricksðð€eventual€termination.€€RicksÏwas€not€immediately€terminated,€however,€but€was€instead,€on€June€26,€1974,Ïoffered€a€ð ðterminalðð€contract€to€teach€one€additional€year,€with€the€contractÍexpiring€on€June€30,€1975.€€Ricks€accepted€the€contract€in€September€of€1974.€ÏShortly€thereafter,€on€September€12,€Ricks€was€notified€that€his€grievance€hadÏbeen€denied.ÌÌà àRicks€filed€suit€on€September€9,€1977.€€A€three„year€statute€of€limitationsÏapplied€and€the€issue€addressed€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€wasÏwhen€did€Ricksðð€cause€of€action€accrue.€€If€the€relevant€statute€of€limitationsÏcommenced,€as€Ricks€claimed,€on€the€expiration€of€the€terminal€contract,€thenÏhis€suit€would€have€been€timely€filed;€however,€if€the€limitations€periodÏcommenced€on€notification€of€the€denial€of€tenure,€the€suit€would€have€beenÏtime„barred.ÌÌà àAs€did€we€in€this€appeal,€the€òòRicksððóó€Court,€first€identified€ð ðprecisely€theÏunlawful€employment€practice€of€which€the€plaintiff€complains.ðð€€òòId.óó,€449€U.S.€atÏ257,€101€S.Ct.€at€503.€€The€Court€concluded€that€it€was€the€decision€to€denyÏtenure€which€had€allegedly€been€influenced€by€an€impermissible€factor.€ÏAccording€to€the€Court,€because€Ricks,€on€learning€of€the€denial€of€tenure€hadÏnotice€of€all€the€allegedly€wrongful€acts€that€he€later€sought€to€challenge,€theÏstatute€of€limitations€was€deemed€to€commence€at€that€time.€€òòId.óó,€449€U.S.€atÏ258,€101€S.Ct.€at€504.€€The€Court€stressed€that€the€termination€of€RicksððÍemployment€was€not€an€independent€discriminatory€act,€but€merely€theÏð ðdelayed,€but€inevitable,€consequence€of€the€denial€of€tenure.ðð€€òòId.óó,€449€U.S.€atÏ257„58,€101€S.Ct.€at€504.€€The€Court€emphasized€that€ð ð[t]he€proper€focus€isÏupon€the€time€of€the€discriminatory€acts,€not€upon€the€time€at€which€theÏconsequences€of€the€acts€become€most€painful.ð ð€€òòId.óó,€449€U.S.€at€258,€101ÏS.Ct.€at€504.€ð ðMere€continuity€of€employment,€without€more,€is€insufficient€toÏprolong€the€life€of€a€cause€of€action€for€employment€discrimination.ðð€€òòId.óó,€449ÏU.S.€at€257,€101€S.Ct.€at€504.€€€€Therefore,€the€Court€found€that€the€limitationsÏperiod€commenced€to€run€when€the€tenure€decision€was€made€and€Ricks€wasÏnotified.€€Identifying€the€latest€possible€triggering€date€as€June€26,€1974,€whenÏRicks€was€offered€the€ð ðterminalðð€contract,€the€Court€held€the€action€was€time„barred.€ÌÌà àSignificantly,€the€Court€in€òòRicksóó€rejected€the€arguments€of€the€EqualÏEmployment€Opportunity€Commission€in€an€òòamicus€curiaeóó€brief,€that€theÏtenure€decision€was€not€made€until€September€12,€1974,€when€Ricks€wasÏnotified€that€his€grievance€had€been€denied,€or€in€the€alternative,€that€theÏpending€grievance€tolled€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àWe€do€not€find€either€argument€to€beÍpersuasive.€€As€to€the€former,€we€think€that€theÏBoard€of€Trustees€had€made€clear€well€beforeÏSeptember€12€that€it€had€formally€rejected€RicksððÏtenure€bid.€€The€June€26€letter€itself€characterizedÏthat€as€the€Boardððs€ð ðofficial€position.ðð€€It€is€apparent,Ïof€course€that€the€Board€in€the€June€26€letterÏindicated€a€willingness€to€change€its€prior€decisionÏif€Ricksðð€grievance€were€found€to€be€meritorious.€ÏBut€entertaining€a€grievance€complaining€of€theÏtenure€decision€does€not€suggest€that€the€earlierÏdecision€was€in€any€respect€tentative.€€TheÏgrievance€procedure,€by€its€nature,€is€a€òòremedyóó€forÏa€prior€decision,€not€an€opportunity€to€òòinfluenceóó€thatÏdecision€before€it€is€made.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àAs€to€the€latter€argument,€we€already€haveÏheld€that€the€pendency€of€a€grievance,€or€someÏother€method€of€collateral€review€of€an€employmentÏdecision,€does€not€toll€the€running€of€the€limitationsÏperiods.€€The€existence€of€careful€procedures€toÏassure€fairness€in€the€tenure€decision€should€notÏobscure€the€principle€that€limitations€periodsÏnormally€commence€when€the€employerððs€decisionÏis€made.ÌÌÓÓòòId.óó,€449€U.S.€at€261,€101€S.Ct.€at€505€(footnotes€and€internal€citationsÏomitted)(emphasis€in€original).€ÌÌà àIn€òòChardon€v.€Fernandezóó,€454€U.S.€6,€102€S.Ct.€28,€70€L.Ed.2d€6Ï(1981),€the€Court€applied€the€òòRicksóó€analysis€in€holding€that€suits€challengingÏpolitically„motivated€firings€brought€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€were€time„barredÏbecause€of€a€failure€to€file€within€the€one„year€limitations€period.€€In€that€case,Íplaintiffs,€administrators€in€the€Puerto€Rico€Department€of€Education,€wereÏnotified€that€their€appointments€would€terminate€on€a€specified€date€in€theÏfuture.€€òòId.óó,€454€U.S.€at€7,€102€S.Ct.€at€28.€€On€filing€the€cause€of€action€afterÏtermination,€the€employees€contended€that€the€limitations€period€should€beginÏto€run€on€the€date€of€their€termination€from€employment,€rather€than€the€dateÏon€which€they€were€notified€of€the€employerððs€termination€decision.ÌÌà àIn€ruling€that€the€plaintiffsðð€actions,€brought€more€than€one„year€afterÏreceipt€of€the€notice€of€termination€were€time„barred,€the€Court€reiterated€itsÏholding€in€òòRicksóó€ð ðthat€the€proper€focus€is€on€the€time€of€the€òòdiscriminatory€actóóÏnot€the€point€at€which€the€òòconsequencesóó€of€the€act€become€painful.ðð€€òòId.óó,€454ÏU.S.€at€8,€102€S.Ct.€at€29€(emphasis€in€original).€€The€Court€pointed€out€thatÏthe€discriminatory€practice€challenged€was€not€the€termination€of€employment,Ïbut€the€decision€of€the€employer€to€terminate€employment€for€political€reasons.€ÏTherefore,€the€Court€found€òòRicksóó€indistinguishable€from€òòChardonóó€because€ð ðinÏeach€case,€the€operative€decision€was€made„„„and€notice€given„„in€advance€ofÏa€designated€date€on€which€employment€terminated.ðð€òòChardonóó,€€454€U.S.€at€9,Ï102€S.Ct.€at€29.ÌÌà àTherefore,€under€the€òòRicks/Chardonóó€analysis,× ƒ. ××  ×€a€discriminatoryÏtermination€ceases€and€is€complete,€when€the€plaintiff€is€given€unequivocalÏnotice€of€the€employerððs€termination€decision,€even€if€employment€does€notÏcease€until€a€designated€date€in€the€future.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòShell€v.€Stateóó,€893ÏS.W.2d€416,€422€(Tenn.€1995)€(an€action€for€the€negligent€deprivation€of€aÏconstitutional€right€accrues€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€wrongful€conduct,€notÏwhen€the€results€of€the€wrongful€conduct€cease€to€have€an€effect€on€theÏplaintiff);€òòWebster€v.€Tennessee€Board€of€Regentsóó,€902€S.W.2d€412€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1995)(one„year€limitations€period€began€to€run€when€universityÏadministrator€was€given€notice€that€he€would€be€terminated€from€hisÏemployment,€rather€than€the€date€on€which€the€administratorððs€contract€forÏservices€ended);€òòJanikowski€v.€Bendix€Corp.óó,€823€F.2d€945,€947€(6th€Cir.Ï1987)(a€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€accrues€when€he€receives€a€notice€ofÏtermination,€not€when€his€employment€actually€ceases);€òòPrice€v.€LittonÏBusiness€Sys.,€Inc.óó,€694€F.2d€963€(4th€Cir.€1982)(plaintiffððs€claim€began€to€runÏwhen€he€was€told€he€would€be€relieved€of€his€position€rather€than€when€heÏfinally€left€the€company).ÌÌà àTo€avoid€the€preclusive€effect€of€the€òòRicksóó€and€òòChardonóó€analysis,€WeberÏargues€that€the€oral€notification€he€received€was€not€definite€and€final.€€HeÏurges€that€he€was€not€unequivocally€informed€by€a€duly€authorizedÏrepresentative€that€Jefferson€Pilot€had€decided€to€terminate€his€contract€untilÏhe€received€the€written€notice€on€September€1,€1992.€€Regardless€of€the€clarityÏof€the€oral€notice,€Weber€also€claims€that€his€written€employment€agreementÏmandating€written€notice€of€termination,€also€controls€the€mode€of€noticeÏnecessary€to€trigger€the€limitations€period.ÌÌà àWe€find€both€arguments€unpersuasive.€€In€a€letter€dated€August€5,€1992Ïand€addressed€to€Walden,€a€regional€vice„president€at€Jefferson€Pilotððs€homeÏoffice,€Weber€requests€that€Jefferson€Pilot€ð ðreconsider€your€decision€toÏterminate€my€Sales€Manager€contract.ðð€€By€his€own€words,€Weber€revealed€hisÏawareness€that€Jefferson€Pilot€òòpreviouslyóó€had€decided€to€terminate€his€salesÏmanager€contract.€€Moreover,€in€his€affidavit€filed€in€this€cause,€Weber€statedÏthat€ð ðI,€therefore,€continued€to€òòhopeóó€that€I€would€not€be€terminated€until€IÏreceived€written€òòverificationóó€of€my€termination€as€sales€manager.ðð€€(EmphasisÏadded.)€€Again,€by€his€own€words,€Weber€has€admitted€that€he€was€aware€ofÏJefferson€Pilotððs€decision€and€only€hoped€that€it€would€be€changed.€€AnÏemployeeððs€hope€for€rehire,€transfer,€promotion,€or€a€continuing€employmentÍrelationship€cannot€toll€the€statute€of€limitations€absent€some€employerÏconduct€likely€to€mislead€an€employee€into€sleeping€on€his€rights.€€òòPriceóó,€694ÏF.2d€at€965.€€There€is€no€evidence€to€show€that€Weber€was€misinformed€orÏmislead€about€the€finality€of€Jefferson€Pilotððs€termination€decision.œ× ƒ/ ××  ×›€€IndeedÏWeberððs€understanding€of€the€finality€of€the€decision€is€unmistakable€from€hisÏuse€of€the€phrase,€ð ðwritten€verification€of€my€termination,ðð€in€his€affidavit.€€TheÏterm€ð ðverificationðð€is€defined€as€ð ðconfirmation€of€correctness,€truth€orÏauthenticity.ðð€€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó€1400€(5th€ed.1979).€€Certainly€a€decisionÏcan€not€be€confirmed€if€it€has€not€already€been€made.ÌÌà àMoreover,€under€òòRicksóó,€the€existence€of€a€grievance€procedure€doesÏnot€change€the€principle€that€the€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€when€theÏtermination€decision€is€made.€€òòId.óó,€449€U.S.€at€261,€101€S.Ct.€at€505;€òòseeóó€€òòalsoóóÏòòKessler€v.€Board€of€Regentsóó,€738€F.2d€751,€754€(6th€Cir.€1984).€€Likewise€theÏexistence€of€a€written€contract€of€employment€designating€the€method€byÏwhich€the€òòcontractóó€may€be€terminated€is€not€relevant€to€calculating€the€date€onÍwhich€the€statute€of€limitations€commenced.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòJones€v.€Baskin,€Flaherty,ÏElliot€and€Marinoóó,€738€F.Supp.€937,€939€(W.D.Pa.€1989)(plaintiff€can€not€claimÏthat€he€was€not€aware€of€the€alleged€discrimination€even€though€he€did€notÏreceive€written€notice€of€his€termination€sixty€days€in€advance€and€have€hisÏtermination€ratified€by€eighty€percent€of€the€Board€of€Directors€as€required€byÏthe€shareholder€and€employment€agreement);€òòcf.óó€òòMull€v.€ARCO€DuretheneÏPlastics,€Inc.óó,€784€F.2d€284€(7th€Cir.€1986)€(a€letter€designating€a€future€dateÏon€which€plaintiff€would€be€terminated€does€not€change€the€fact€that€plaintiffÏhad€previously€received€unequivocal€notice€of€termination€which€triggered€theÏstatute€of€limitations).€Acceptance€of€Weberððs€argument€would€injectÏuncertainty€into€tort€law€and€defeat€the€purposes€of€statutes€of€limitations€whichÏare€designed€to€ensure€fairness,€prevent€undue€delay,€and€preserve€evidenceÏfrom€the€dangers€inherent€in€the€passage€of€time.€€òòPotts€v.€œCelotex›€Corp.óó,€796ÏS.W.2d€678,€681€(Tenn.€1990);€òòseeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòDevelopments€in€the€Law:ÏStatutes€of€Limitationsóó,€63€Harv.L.Rev.€1176,€1185€(1950).ÌÌà àApplying€the€òòRicks/Chardonóó€analysis€to€the€facts€in€this€case,€weÍconclude€that€the€limitations€period€began€to€run,€at€the€latest,€on€August€5,Ï1992€when€Weber€knew€of€the€defendantsðð€decision€to€terminate€his€contract.€ÏAccordingly,€Weberððs€claim€under€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act,€filed€onÏAugust€31,€1993,€is€time„barred€by€the€one„year€limitations€period.€€ÌÌà@ àò òB.€Retaliatory€Dischargeó óÌà àLikewise,€the€statute€of€limitations€precludes€Weberððs€retaliatoryÏdischarge€claim.€€A€claim€for€retaliatory€discharge€is€a€tort€action€which€isÏgoverned€by€the€general€tort€statute€of€limitations€which€requires€that€a€lawsuitÏbe€ð ðcommenced€within€one€(1)€year€after€the€cause€of€action€accrued€.€.€.€.ððÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„104€(1980€Repl.€and€Supp.€1996);€òòHeadrick€v.€UnionÏCarbide€Corp.óó,€825€S.W.2d€424€(Tenn.€App.€1991);€òòcf.óó€òòVan€Cleave€v.€McKeeÏBaking€Co.óó,€712€S.W.2d€94€(Tenn.€1986).ÌÌà àIt€is€well„established€that€a€tort€action€accrues€when€the€plaintiff€knows,Ïor€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€care€and€diligence€should€know,€that€an€injuryÏhas€been€sustained.€€òòWyatt€v.€A„Best,€Co.,€Inc.óó,€910€S.W.2d€851,€854€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€While€a€prerequisite€to€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations€isÏplaintiffððs€reasonable€knowledge€that€an€injury€has€been€sustained,€a€plaintiffÏis€not€entitled€to€delay€filing€until€all€injurious€effects€or€consequences€of€theÍactionable€wrong€are€fully€known.€€òòIdóó.€at€855.€ÌÌà àWeber€sustained€the€injury€he€now€alleges€when€Jefferson€PilotÏdecided€to€terminate€his€sales€manager€contract€effective€August€31,€1992.€ÏMoreover,€he€became€aware€of€the€injury€when€he€was€orally€advised€in€earlyÏAugust€of€Jefferson€Pilotððs€decision.€€Actual€termination€of€the€contract€isÏnothing€more€than€the€consequence€of€Jefferson€Pilotððs€earlier€decision.€€TheÏstatute€of€limitations,€therefore,€precludes€Weberððs€retaliatory€discharge€claim.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€one„year€limitations€period€for€Weberððs€claims€ofÏdiscriminatory€practice€and€retaliatory€discharge€commenced€when€heÏreceived€oral€notice€in€early€August€of€Jefferson€Pilotððs€decision€to€terminateÏhis€sales€manager€contract.€€Therefore,€Weberððs€complaint,€filed€more€thanÏone„year€after€the€date€on€which€he€received€oral€notice€of€Jefferson€PilotððsÏtermination€decision€is€time„barred.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€AppealsððÏaffirmance€of€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€Weberððs€action€is€affirmed.€€Costs€ofÏthis€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff,€Blake€Weber,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.ÌÌÌà àÓÓà àà àà àà à_____________________________________à àà àà àà àà àà àFrank€F.€Drowota,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJusticeÌÌConcur:ÌÌBirch,€C.€J.ÌAnderson,€Reid,€JJ.