Charles Haynes v. Formac Stables, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the TPPA “requires an employee to show that his or her refusal to remain silent was the sole reason for the discharge”
• recognizing that a claim for workers’ compensation retaliation, as established by Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co., 677 S.W.2d 441, 445 (Tenn. 1984), is distinct from at TPPA claim
• noting that the Western Section and Middle Section of this Court differed from the Eastern Section with respect to the reporting requirements in a “whistleblower” claim
• “The sole issue before us is whether the Plaintiff has stated a viable claim for retaliatory discharge when he reported the illegal stitching procedure only to [Defendant]'s owner, who was primarily responsible for the conduct.”
• “When an employee reports wrongdoing only to the wrongdoer—who is already aware of his or her own misconduct—there has been no exposure of the employer's illegal or unsafe practices. Such an employee necessarily fails to ‘blow the whistle’ in a meaningful fashion[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).