Skip to main content
· 3/2/2017

Laura Lee Demastus v. University Health System, Inc.

Syllabus

Plaintiff Laura Lee Demastus brought this action against her former employer, University Health System, Inc., doing business as the University of Tennessee Medical Center (Employer). After Plaintiff had worked roughly three years as a nurse at the UT Medical Center, Employer suspected that she was illegally diverting medications. When Plaintiff's supervisors confronted her with evidence of several suspicious transactions recorded by the medication monitoring systems, Plaintiff denied doing anything wrong or improper. She, however, could not explain the suspicious transactions. She was terminated shortly thereafter. Plaintiff brought this action under the Tennessee Disabilities Act (TDA), Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103 et seq. (2016), alleging that she was fired solely because Employer perceived her to have the disability of drug addiction. Employer argued that it did not fire her because she was considered a drug addict, but because it thought she was stealing medications. Following discovery, the trial court granted summary judgment, holding that under the undisputed material facts, Plaintiff could not establish that Employer's proffered non-discriminatory reason was a pretext for illegal discrimination. We affirm

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that project-based work tips heavily in favor of independent contractor status
  • stressing that directional drillers must “work in concert with the rest of the drilling operation”
  • explaining that it is not significant how one ‘could have’ acted under the contract terms,” but rather how the worker acted in economic reality
  • observing that tax returns may be relevant for other purposes such as determining profits and losses
  • noting that directional drilling firm’s “significant” investment “at a drill site” was necessary for directional drillers to be “able to complete the job”
  • finding this factor favors employee status, but “merits little weight in the light of the other summary-judgment-record evidence supporting [independent contractor] status”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.