ÿWPCÆ 7# UN %k 0(qwš™43GV 0Æ^ 0D$U:h 0J¢ 0Tì 0^@ 0hž 0r 0|x 0†ô 0z 1u 0d Bã AQ ÆQ 0D 0@[ 0D› D/ß B D3+ U>^ U *œ B)Æ DCï AM2(§È(…ðv~uvÓó˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡er‚er‚ U!"#$E%N&E'N(E)L*D+D,D-D.•/0D1Ó€;<ê‚_#3|xA(v(2$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X¸XXXÔÔ€ô,îôXX¸Ôà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd!#/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€-ÔÔ€-ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€-XÔÌÌApril€13,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó wÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-ÔÔ€-ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€jury€found€"that€Mrs.€Forbes'€colon€cancer€was€the€sole€reason€for€the€911€Board'sÏdecision€to€demote€her€to€part„time€operator€instead€of€full„time€operator."Ì ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-ÔÔ€-ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOral€argument€was€heard€in€this€case€on€October€8,€1997,€in€Columbia,€Maury€County,ÏTennessee,€as€part€of€this€Courtððs€S.C.A.L.E.S.€(ò òSó óupreme€ò òCó óourt€ò òAó ódvancing€ò òLó óegal€ò òEó óducation€forÏò òSó ótudents)€project.Ì {Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-ÔÔ€-ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€back€pay€was€awarded€under€both€the€Open€Meetings€Act€and€the€handicapÏdiscrimination€statute,€the€total€award€of€$€404,650€reflected€only€one€back€pay€award.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(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  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€-ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œ›Ñ7€ŒâXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑœÔ  ÔÔ  Ôò òÞ ÞÌà@ à›IN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ à(HEARD€AT€COLUMBIA)ÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFOR€PUBLICATIONÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òFiled:ó ó€òò€€€€€April€œ13,›€1998à€ àóóÌÌÌÌEDNA€FORBES,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àAPPELLANT,à@ à)à àWILSON€CHANCERYÌà@ à)Ìv.à@ à)à àHon.€C.€K.€Smith,€ChancellorÌà@ à)ÌWILSON€COUNTY€EMERGENCYà@ à)à àNo.€01S01„9702„CH„00026ÌÙ€!ÙœßR€01/A1-j|«` ç `€€@ÿRß›DISTRICT€911€BOARD€ANDà@ à)ÌW.€J.€MCCLUSKEY,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àAPPELLEE.à@ à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTSóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€APPELLEESóó:ÌÌMARGARET€L.€BEHMà àà àà àW.€GARY€BLACKBURNÌANNE€C.€MARTINà àà àà àà àBLACKBURN,€SLOBEY,€FREEMANÌDODSON,€PARKER€&€BEHMà àà àà à&€HAPPELLÌNASHVILLEà àà àà àà àà àNASHVILLEÌÌÌÌœ›ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òÔ€-èÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€-XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌTRIAL€COURT€AFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED;ÌCASE€REMANDEDà€ àHOLDER,€J.ÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€plaintiff,€Edna€Forbes,€was€employed€by€the€Wilson€CountyÏEmergency€Communication€District€911€Board€("911€Board").€€She€was€hired€inÏMay€of€1991€as€the€Board's€first€911€supervisor.€€In€November€of€1992,€Ms.ÏForbes€began€experiencing€physical€problems.€€Her€symptoms€includedÏbleeding,€back€pain,€difficulty€in€walking€and€fatigue.€€On€March€22,€1993,€sheÏwas€diagnosed€as€having€colon€cancer€and€scheduled€for€hospitalization€andÏtreatment€that€was€to€begin€on€March€24,€1993.ÌÌà àMs.€Forbes€spent€the€days€prior€to€her€hospitalization€at€her€officeÏpreparing€for€an€anticipated€six€to€eight€week€absence.€€She€preparedÏschedules€for€the€operators€in€advance€and€drafted€notices€to€employeesÏdelegating€responsibilities.€€She€contacted€W.J.€McClusky,€Chairman€of€the€911ÏBoard,€and€informed€him€that€she€was€being€admitted€to€the€hospital€forÏemergency€surgical€procedures€on€March€24,€1993.€€She€explained€to€Mr.ÏMcClusky€that€she€had€been€diagnosed€with€colon€cancer€and€that€she€mightÏbe€unable€to€work€for€a€period€of€six€to€eight€weeks.ÌÌà àTestimony€indicates€that€Mr.€McClusky€became€irate.€€He€raised€his€voiceÏat€Ms.€Forbes€and€informed€her€that€she€was€"getting€ready€to€get€[her]self€inÍtrouble"€for€being€out€of€the€office.€€Ms.€Forbes€became€emotional€during€theÏconversation€with€Mr.€McClusky.€€She€notified€the€other€board€members€of€herÏsituation€in€writing.ÌÌà àMs.€Forbes€underwent€surgery€and€had€a€portion€of€her€colon€removedÏon€March€26,€1993.€€She€remained€in€the€hospital€for€several€days€and€finishedÏher€recovery€at€home.€€Her€doctors€released€her€to€return€to€work€on€May€11,Ï1993.€€She€provided€the€county€attorney,€Michael€Jennings,€with€doctors'€notesÏregarding€her€medical€release.ÌÌà àApproximately€one€week€prior€to€the€regularly€scheduled€May€10,€1993,Ï911€Board€meeting,€the€board€members€conducted€a€secret€meetingÏconcerning€Ms.€Forbes.€€Mr.€McClusky€presented€a€"list€of€concerns"€regardingÏMs.€Forbes€at€this€closed€meeting.€€The€911€board€members€in€attendance€atÏthe€closed€meeting€did€not€contact€Ms.€Forbes€to€review€any€of€Mr.€McClusky'sÏconcerns€with€her.ÌÌà àOn€May€10,€1993,€the€911€Board€held€its€scheduled€public€meeting.€ÏDuring€the€May€10€meeting,€the€911€Board€voted€to€demote€Ms.€Forbes€to€aÏpart„time€operator€position€with€no€benefits.€€The€vote€and€subsequent€demotionÏoccurred€without€any€discussion€concerning€Ms.€Forbes'€performance€or€Mr.ÍMcClusky's€"list€of€concerns."€€Ms.€Forbes€was€notified€of€the€Board's€decisionÏby€certified€letter€and€was€never€contacted€to€work€at€the€911€office€in€anyÏcapacity.ÌÌà àA€jury€found€that€the€defendant,€911€Board,€had€violated€both€the€OpenÏMeetings€Act€and€the€handicap€discrimination€statute.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€The€jury€awarded€Ms.ÏForbes€$€69,975€in€back€pay,€$€38,675€in€front€pay,€$€250,000€in€damages€forÏembarrassment€and€humiliation€and€$€50,000€in€punitive€damages.€€The€trialÏcourt€further€awarded€Ms.€Forbes€$€50,000€in€attorney's€fees€and€$€6,455€inÏlitigation€expenses.€€The€court€denied€the€defendants'€oral€motions€for€new€trialÏor€remittitur.€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€judgment€as€to€the€Open€Meetings€ActÏbut€reversed€the€trial€court's€judgment€on€the€issue€of€handicap€discrimination.€ÏThe€court€found€that€the€Board's€demotion€of€Ms.€Forbes€was€void€due€to€theÏBoard's€violation€of€the€Open€Meetings€Act.€€The€court,€however,€found€thatÏbecause€the€demotion€was€void,€the€"plaintiff€ha[d]€not€been€discriminatedÏagainst€.€.€."€€and€reinstated€her€to€her€supervisory€position.€€Judge€Lillard,€in€aÏconcurring€and€dissenting€opinion,€noted€that€while€the€Board's€decision€wasÍvoid,€the€plaintiff's€damages€were€"certainly€real."€€Accordingly,€Judge€LillardÏwould€not€have€employed€a€legal€fiction€to€deny€Ms.€Forbes€her€remedies€underÏthe€handicap€discrimination€law.× ƒ3 ××  ×ÌÌÓ  Óò òANALYSISó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€plaintiff€argues€that€the€appellate€court€erred€in€finding€that€"[s]inceÏthe€board's€action€is€void,€plaintiff€has€not€been€demoted€and€is€reinstated€to€herÏposition€as€supervisor.€€Because€there€was€no€demotion,€plaintiff€has€not€beenÏdiscriminated€against€.€.€."€€The€issue€is,€therefore,€whether€the€Board'sÏdiscriminatory€action€which€is€later€determined€to€be€void€under€the€OpenÏMeetings€Act€can€still€serve€as€the€basis€for€discrimination.€€We€hold€that€it€can.ÌÌà àWhile€the€Board's€actions€were€void,€both€the€demotion€and€itsÏconsequences€were€"certainly€real"€for€Ms.€Forbes.€€The€concept€argued€by€theÏdefendants€and€advanced€by€the€appellate€court's€majority€is€pernicious.€€UnderÏthe€"void€and€of€no€effect"€rule,€a€decision€to€discriminate€made€in€violation€ofÏthe€Open€Meetings€Law€is€treated€as€an€absolute€nullity€or€as€though€theÏdecision€had€never€been€made.€€This,€however,€is€contrary€to€reality€in€the€caseÍnow€before€us.€€The€Board€made€a€discriminatory€decision,€and€the€plaintiffÏsuffered€real€consequences.€€For€the€law€to€refuse€to€recognize€these€facts€andÏaccord€them€any€significance€whatsoever€is€for€the€law€to€blind€itself€to€aÏmoment€of€historical€reality.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€under€the€facts€of€this€case€no€purpose€is€served€by€treatingÏthe€defendants'€actions€as€though€they€never€occurred.€€An€actor€whoÏdiscriminates€should€not€be€able€to€circumvent€liability€for€discrimination€merelyÏby€violating€another€law€or€statute.€€We€hold€that€a€discriminatory€decision€madeÏin€violation€of€the€Open€Meetings€Act€can€serve€as€the€basis€for€a€discriminationÏsuit€even€though€the€decision€is€later€declared€void€for€violating€the€OpenÏMeetings€Act.ÌÌà àOur€next€inquiry€is€whether€colon€cancer€can€constitute€a€handicap.€ÏAlthough€the€handicap€discrimination€statute€does€not€contain€a€definition€ofÏhandicap,€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€("THRA")€defines€handicap€as:ÌÌÓÓà8 à(I)à0 àA€physical€or€mental€impairment€which€substantially€limitsÏone€(1)€or€more€of€such€person's€major€life€activities;€orÌÌà8 à(ii)€€à àA€record€of€having€such€an€impairment;€orÌÌà8 à(iii)€€à0 àBeing€regarded€as€having€such€an€impairment.ÌœÌÓÓ›ÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„102(9);€òòseeóó€òòCecil€v.€Gibsonóó,€820€S.W.2d€361€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1991)€(holding€that,€since€œthe€handicap›€discrimination€statute€embodiesÏrights€contained€in€œthe€THRA,›€œthe€THRA›€definition€of€handicap€should€be€used).€ÏThe€THRA's€definition€of€handicap€includes€persons€perceived€or€"regarded"€asÏhaving€an€impairment€"which€substantially€limits€a€major€life€activity."€€A€majorÏlife€activity€includes€working.€€òòIdóó.€at€365.€€We€believe€that€cancer€is€an€illnessÏthat€may€be€perceived€or€regarded€as€limiting€a€major€life€activity€in€aÏsubstantial€manner.€€The€record€indicates€that€at€least€one€board€memberÏbased€his€decision€to€demote€the€plaintiff€on€his€perception€that€she€was€sickÏand€"would€have€to€go€to€the€doctor."€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€jury's€finding€that€the€plaintiff€was€demoted€solelyÏbecause€of€a€handicap.ÌÌÓ  Óò òREMEDIES€AND€DAMAGESó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€jury€awarded€the€plaintiff€back€pay€in€the€amount€of€$€65,975€for€theÏviolation€of€the€Open€Meetings€Act.€€On€the€handicap€discrimination€claim,€theÏplaintiff€was€awarded:€€$€65,975€for€back€pay,€$€38,675€in€front€pay,€$€250,000Ïfor€humiliation€and€embarrassment,€and€$€50,000€in€punitive€damages.€€TheÍtrial€judge€entered€a€judgment€for€$€404,650× ƒ4 ××  ×€and€reasonable€attorney's€feesÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„306(7).€€The€defendants€raise€the€followingÏissues€on€appeal€concerning€the€award€of€damages:ÌÌà8 à(1)€€à0 àWhether€Mrs.€Forbes€failed€to€properly€elect€betweenÏinconsistent€remedies;Ìà8 à(2)€€à0 àWhether€the€Court€of€Appeals€provided€the€proper€remedyÏunder€the€Open€Meetings€Act;Ìà8 à(3)€€à0 àWhether€$€250,000€for€humiliation€and€embarrassment€wasÏexcessive;Ìà8 à(4)€€à0 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€punitive€damages;ÏandÌà8 à(5)€€à0 àWhether€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€attorney's€fees€forÏappealing€this€action.ÌÌIssues€1,€3€and€4€were€pretermitted€by€the€decision€of€a€majority€of€the€appellateÏcourt.€€These€issues€were€briefed€upon€appeal.€€In€the€interest€of€judicialÏeconomy,€we€will€address€issues€1€and€4€in€lieu€of€remand.€€Issue€3€addressingÏremittitur,€however,€is€remanded.ÌÌÓ  ÓòòELECTION€OF€REMEDIESóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àA€plaintiff€under€certain€circumstances€may€be€required€to€elect€betweenÏremedies.€€The€purpose€behind€the€election€of€remedies€doctrine€is€to€preventÏ"double€redress"€for€a€single€wrong.€€òòBarger€v.€Webbóó,€391€S.W.2d€664,€666„667Ï(Tenn.€1965).€€The€election€of€remedies€doctrine€has€two€general€applications:€Ï(1)€€a€plaintiff€may€be€estopped€from€pursuing€additional€remedies€once€aÏplaintiff€has€made€a€choice€to€pursue€a€specific€remedy€in€another€forum€orÏlawsuit,€òòPurcell€Enterprises,€Inc.€v.€Stateóó,€631€S.W.2d€401,€409€(Tenn.€App.Ï1981);€and€(2)€€a€plaintiff€may€be€forced€to€elect€between€different€remediesÏ"[w]here€the€remedies€are€so€inconsistent€or€repugnant€that€pursuit€of€oneÏnecessarily€involves€negation€of€the€other."€€òòWimley€v.€Rudolphóó,€931€S.W.2dÏ513,€515€(Tenn.€1996).€€Neither€situation€is€present€in€the€case€now€before€us.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€in€this€case€has€not€received€compensation€from€a€priorÏsettlement€or€award.€€òòSeeóó€òòBarger€v.€Webbóó,€391€S.W.2d€at€666„667€(holdingÏacceptance€of€settlement€estopped€plaintiff€from€subsequent€suit).€€She€has€notÏattempted€to€seek€"double€redress€for€a€single€wrong€by€bringing€an€actionÏbased€upon€identical€claims€in€two€different€forums."€€òòSeeóó€òòHutchison€v.€Pyburnóó,Ï567€S.W.2d€762,€765€(Tenn.€App.€1977);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòPurcell€Enterprises,€Inc.€v.ÍStateóó,€631€S.W.2d€at€409€(noting€purpose€of€election€doctrine€to€prevent€doubleÏredress€for€single€wrong).€€€We€shall€now€focus€on€whether€the€remedies€underÏthe€two€acts€are€inconsistent€or€repugnant.ÌÌà àWe€believe€that€the€violation€of€the€Open€Meetings€Act€and€theÏdiscriminatory€demotion,€in€the€case€now€before€us,€created€two€separate€andÏdistinct€causes€of€action€under€two€separate€remedial€statutory€schemes.€€TheÏhandicap€discrimination€statute€embodies€the€remedies€provided€by€the€THRAÏin€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€4„21„302€to€„311.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„50„103(b)(2).€ÏThe€THRA€provides€a€broad€array€of€remedies€including:€€hiring,€reinstatementÏwith€or€without€back€pay,€injunctive€relief,€payment€of€damages€for€injury,€costs,Ïreasonable€attorney's€fee,€and€"[s]uch€other€remedies€as€necessary€to€eliminateÏall€the€discrimination€identified€by€the€evidence€.€.€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïœðððð›œ4„21„306›€&€„311.€€The€Open€Meetings€Act€is€remedial€in€nature€and€permitsÏcourts€"to€issue€injunctions,€impose€penalties,€and€otherwise€enforce€theÏpurposes€of"€the€Act.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„44„106(a);€òòDorrier€v.€Darkóó,€537ÏS.W.2d€888,€891€(Tenn.€1976)€(finding€statute€remedial€in€nature).€€Accordingly,Ïboth€statutory€schemes€provide€for€similar€remedies€and€incorporate€someÏdegree€of€judicial€discretion€in€fashioning€an€appropriate€remedy€to€further€theÏpurposes€of€each€Act.€€We,€therefore,€find€that€the€remedies€provided€by€theÏOpen€Meetings€Act€and€the€THRA€are€neither€inconsistent€nor€repugnant.€€òòSeeóóÍòòGarrett€v.€Mazda€Motors€of€Amer.óó,€844€S.W.2d€178,€180€(Tenn.€App.€1992)Ï(stating€remedies€"must€be€truly€inconsistent").ÌÌà àWe€believe€that€it€would€be€illogical€to€attempt€to€return€the€plaintiff€toÏòòstatusóó€òòquoóó€òòanteóó€in€the€case€now€before€us.€€The€jury€found€that€reinstatementÏwas€not€feasible€due€to€animosity€associated€with€this€litigation.€€The€jury,Ïtherefore,€awarded€front€pay€in€lieu€of€reinstatement€under€the€THRA.€€TheÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€jury's€findings.€€The€defendants'Ïargument€that€the€plaintiff€has€failed€to€elect€between€inconsistent€remedies€isÏwithout€merit,€and€the€jury's€award€of€front€pay€under€the€THRA€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓ  ÓòòDAMAGES€FOR€HUMILIATION€AND€EMBARRASSMENTóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendants€made€an€oral€motion€for€remittitur€in€the€trial€courtÏalleging€that€$€250,000€for€humiliation€and€embarrassment€was€excessive€andÏthe€result€of€"passion€and€caprice."€€The€trial€court€denied€the€defendants'Ïrequest€for€remittitur.€€The€defendants€again€challenged€the€$€250,000€award€forÏhumiliation€and€damages€as€excessive€in€the€appellate€court.€€The€appellateÏcourt,€however,€pretermitted€this€issue.€€We€remand€to€the€appellate€court€theÏissue€of€whether€an€award€of€$250,000€for€humiliation€and€embarrassment€wasÏexcessive.ÌÌÓ  ÓòòPUNITIVE€DAMAGESóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€jury€awarded€punitive€damages€to€the€plaintiff€under€the€THRA€priorÏto€our€decision€in€òòCarver€v.€Citizens€Utilities€Co.óó,€954€S.W.2d€34€(Tenn€1997).€ÏIn€òòCarveróó,€we€held€"that€punitive€damages€under€the€THRA€are€available€only€inÏcases€involving€discriminatory€housing€practices€and€malicious€harassment."€ÏòòIdóó.€at€36.€€The€plaintiff's€award€of€punitive€damages€under€the€THRA€wasÏpredicated€on€violations€of€the€handicap€discrimination€law.€€Accordingly,€theÏjury's€award€of€punitive€damages€is€vacated.ÌÌÓ  ÓÔ  ÔòòATTORNEY'S€FEESóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€plaintiff€has€asked€this€Court€to€award€attorney's€fees€incurred€in€thisÏappeal.€€The€remedies€provided€by€the€THRA€include€"reasonable"€attorney'sÏfees.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„306(a)(7)€&€„311.€€The€plaintiff€is€the€prevailingÏparty€in€this€suit€and€is€entitled€to€relief€under€the€THRA.€€The€THRA€does€notÏrequire€that€the€plaintiff€prevail€on€all€appellate€issues€before€attorney's€feesÏmay€be€awarded.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„306€(providing€that€affirmativeÏaction€ordered€under€the€THRA€"may€include€.€.€.€a€reasonable€attorney's€œfee");›Ïòòseeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòChurch€of€Scientology€Flag€Serv.€Org.€v.€City€of€Clearwateróó,€2ÏF.3rd€1509,€1513€(11th€Cir.€1993)€(noting€"well„settled"€law€that€plaintiff€isÏprevailing€party€if€plaintiff€has€succeeded€on€any€significant€issue€whichÏachieves€some€of€the€benefit€the€parties€sought€in€bringing€œsuit).›€€Accordingly,Ïthe€plaintiff's€attorneys€are€entitled€to€reasonable€compensation€for€their€timeÏspent€in€pursuing€this€appeal.€€The€issue€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€aÏdetermination€of€a€reasonable€fee€for€the€attorneys'€services€during€theÏappellate€process.ÌÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€as€modified,€and€the€case€isÏremanded€to€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€The€award€of€punitive€damages€is€vacated.ÏThe€Court€of€Appeals€shall€review€on€remand€the€issue€of€whether€the€$Ï250,000€award€for€humiliation€and€embarrassment€was€excessive.€€UponÏresolution€of€the€excessive€award€issue,€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€a€determination€as€to€an€award€for€reasonable€attorney's€fees€associatedÏwith€this€appeal.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€shall€be€taxed€against€the€defendants,ÏWilson€County€Emergency€Communication€District€911€Board€and€W.J.ÏMcCluskey,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòòà€ àóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJanice€M.€Holder,€JusticeÌÌÌÌò òPanel:ó óÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌœDrowota,€Reid,€Birch,€J.J.›