Julie Clark v. Wanda Givens
Syllabus
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.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that two-and-a-half month gap between the protected activity and the adverse action did not, on its own, support an inference of retaliation
- rejecting interval of two and a half months as establishing temporal proximity “on the record [in this case]”
- determining a two-and-a-half-month gap was too long to establish temporal proximity
- employer’s criticism of plaintiff for exhibiting “negative behaviors” was not a materially adverse action because petty slights and minor annoyances would not deter a reasonable employee from making a charge of discrimination
- two and a half months insufficient
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.