 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sloan v. Tri-County Electric Membership Corp.2/7/2002
Plaintiff married her co-worker, and one of them was forced to resign pursuant to the company's anti-nepotism policy prohibiting concurrent employment of spouses. Plaintiff resigned and brought this action for wrongful discharge alleging her dismissal violated public policy favoring marriage and was due to her exercise of the fundamental right to marry. The trial court dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Because Plaintiff has failed to show that a policy prohibiting concurrent employment of spouses violates a clear mandate of public policy, we affirm the trial court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and Remanded
Patricia J. Cottrell, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which William C. Koch, Jr., and William B. Cain, JJ., joined.
OPINION
Plaintiff, Terilyn Sloan, was an employee of Defendant, Tri-County Electric, working in the Human Resource Department. She married DeWayne Sloan, also an employee of Tri-County. The Sloans were informed by management that, because of Tri-County's anti-nepotism policy, one of them had to resign within one month or both would be terminated. Terilyn Sloan resigned. Ms. Sloan sued alleging Tri-County tortiously violated public policy when it fired her and seeking compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement, back pay, and attorney fees and costs.
Tri-County filed a motion to dismiss arguing Ms. Sloan failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court granted that motion and dismissed the complaint. This appeal ensued.
Ms. Sloan's claim is that dismissal of an employee for reasons that violate public policy or because the employee exercised a fundamental right is actionable. She asserts that marriage is a fundamental right that is favored by the public policy of this state and that she was forced to resign because she got married.
The parties do not dispute that Ms. Sloan (or her husband) was forced to resign because Tri-State enforced its policy, in effect since 1977, which prohibits concurrent employment by "close relatives" and "immediate family." The policy defines those terms as including spouses. The policy was routinely discussed with potential new employees, and Ms. Sloan was aware of the policy.
Tri-State argues that its anti-nepotism policy does not contravene public policy or any constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision. While it does not dispute that marriage is favored by public policy, it argues that enforcement of its employment policy does not infringe upon an individual's right to marry. Rather, Tri-State asserts the policy imposes a restriction upon employment based upon legitimate business reasons. According to Tri-State, the problem with Ms. Sloan's continued employment was not her marriage, but was her marriage to a co-worker.
We are persuaded that Tri-County's definition of the issue presented is the correct one. Ms. Sloan did not lose her employment because Tri-State enforced a personnel policy limiting employment to unmarried persons. See Boaden v. Department of Law Enforcement, 664 N.E.2d 61 (Ill. 1996) (no-spouse policies are not based on individual's marital status, but on identity of the spouse). To maintain this action, Ms. Sloan must show that an employment policy prohibiting concurrent employment of spouses violates legal protections or a clear mandate of public policy. Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 717 (Tenn. 1997).
The doctrine of employment at-will is a longstanding rule in Tennessee which recognizes the right of either the employer or the employee to terminate the employment relationship at any time
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|