A new report published yesterday by the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession details the experiences of female Native American lawyers as they navigate the intersection of race and gender in the legal profession. The report was published in collaboration with the National Native American Bar Association (NNABA). "Excluded & Alone: Examining the Experiences of Native American Women in the Law and a Path Towards Equity" recounts personal stories of the challenges facing female Native Americans who practice law and is based on a qualitative research study conducted by Arin N. Reeves, Ph.D., president and managing director of Nextions LLC. For the study, 74 Native American female lawyers were randomly chosen to participate in group sessions, sharing personal stories about their journeys into and within the legal profession. Findings from the report were presented yesterday as part of a webinar. Read the ABA's full press release. 

The TBA Law Tech Lunch & Learn Series will hit the road this winter across Tennessee with a kick off session in Knoxville on Dec. 15 from noon to 2:15 p.m. EST at Lewis Thomason, 620 Market St., 5th Floor, Knoxville 37902. The program will feature discussions and presentations on the various types of cybersecurity attacks and how to respond to ransomware and data breaches. Registration will begin at 11:30 a.m. Make plans now to join us as the Lunch & Learn Series travels to Nashville in February and Memphis in March. Find out more about the Knoxville session and register.

The TBA’s 35th Annual Health Law Forum took place in downtown Nashville yesterday and today. Close to 300 attendees heard updates on regulatory fraud and abuse, antitrust, False Claims Act, the future of telehealth and privacy issues. The program also included a legislative update and ethics update. The keynote address was delivered by Dr. C. Buddy Creech with Vanderbilt University Medical Center, who spoke about preparing for the next pandemic. Section Chair Mark Ison with Sherrard Roe Voigt & Harbison in Nashville moderated the event, and at a luncheon today, passed the Section Cup to incoming chair Ian Hennessey, general counsel for Alliance for Multispecialty Research in Knoxville. See photos from the event.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti on Wednesday sent a letter joined by 19 other state attorneys general commenting on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) “Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.” The letter claims that the proposal "threatens the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans," according to a press release from the AG's office. The EEOC has suggested new guidance that would broaden Title VII's prohibition of "sex-based harassment" to include “intentional and repeated use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity (misgendering)” and “the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.” Read the letter.

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments in a pair of cases that test whether the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment bars government officials from blocking their critics on social media platforms. The question is whether social media activity should be deemed official action that is subject to limits on the government’s ability to restrict speech. One case involves parents in California who were blocked from the personal Twitter accounts of school board members, while another looks at a suit against a Michigan city official who blocked a state resident on Facebook. SCOTUSblog reports on the cases.

The Defendant, Hank Cooley, Jr., appeals from his best interest, guilty-pleaded convictions for felony evading arrest risking death or injury, driving on a revoked license (second offense), reckless driving, disobeying a traffic signal, violation of the light law, speeding, and failure to exercise due care. See T.C.A. §§ 39-16-603(b)(3)(B) (2018) (subsequently amended) (evading arrest), 55-50-504 (2020) (driving on a revoked license), 55-10-205 (2020) (reckless driving), 55-8-110 (2020) (subsequently amended) (disobeying a traffic signal), 55-9-402 (2020) (subsequently amended) (violation of light law), 55-8-152 (2008) (speeding), and 55-8-136 (2020) (failure to exercise due care). The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of twelve years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the court erred by denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Martin Walker ("Petitioner"), an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction ("TDOC"). Petitioner seeks review of the decision by the Tennessee Board of Parole ("Board") to deny him parole. He raises numerous challenges to the propriety of the Board's action and procedures. Finding no error, we affirm.

Neighbors sued to invalidate zoning ordinances that would allow two real estate development projects to be built at significantly taller heights than prior zoning regulations allowed. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim in part because it found that the passage of two zoning ordinances gave the developers vested property rights under the Tennessee Vested Property Rights Act of 2014 (VPRA). We conclude the trial court erred in its application of the VPRA, but we affirm the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.

A homeowner, displeased with the work performed by a handyman, brought suit, seeking damages and relief under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The handyman counterclaimed for the value of the oral contract for services, asserting the homeowner breached the contract by improperly terminating it. The circuit court denied relief to both parties, and the parties appeal. We conclude that the circuit court did not err in determining that there was no enforceable contract, precluding relief for the handyman. Likewise, the homeowner is not entitled to relief because the evidence does not preponderate against the circuit court’s finding that there was no misrepresentation and that the handyman rendered services to earn certain prepaid amounts. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

This is an appeal of the trial court’s order denying the employee’s motion to compel compliance with an earlier order for ongoing temporary disability benefits. While at work, the employee was physically assaulted by a customer who then struck the employee with a vehicle and dragged her several feet when attempting to leave the employer’s parking lot. The employee suffered an injury to her back and received workers’ compensation benefits. Upon reaching maximum medical improvement for her back injury, the employer stopped paying temporary disability benefits. Thereafter, the employer authorized a psychiatric evaluation, and the employee was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and restricted from work. The employee requested an expedited hearing to reinstate temporary total disability benefits, and the trial court determined that although the employee suffered physical injuries, her mental injury did not arise primarily from the physical injuries, rendering Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(1)(E) inapplicable. Accordingly, the court ordered the employer to pay past and ongoing temporary total disability benefits, and that order was not appealed. Subsequently, 104 weeks after the accident, the employer ceased payment of temporary benefits pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(1)(D)(ii), which limits such benefits to a maximum of 104 weeks “after the date of injury” for mental injuries “where there is no underlying physical injury.” The employee filed a motion to compel the employer’s compliance with the prior order, asserting she was entitled to continuing temporary benefits. The employer argued that the employee was conclusively presumed to be at maximum medical improvement pursuant to the applicable statute. In a decision on the record, the trial court denied the employee’s motion, and the employee has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record and arguments of counsel, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.