 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morris v. State3/1/1999
AFFIRMED
This case requires us to determine whether the Tennessee Claims Commission has subject-matter jurisdiction over actions filed against the State for the tort of retaliatory discharge. Because we conclude that the Claims Commission does not have such jurisdiction, the judgment of the Court of Appeals vacating the Claims Commission's award and dismissing the retaliatory discharge action is affirmed.
I.
The plaintiff was employed as an account clerk in the pharmacy at the Tennessee State Prison in Nashville. On August 24, 1990, she fell and struck her head on the corner of her desk. After recuperating for the weekend at home, the plaintiff attempted to return to work the following Monday morning but could not do so because her head was swollen. Although she "called in" every day after this, the plaintiff remained out of work due to continuing problems from her head injury. The plaintiff filed notice of her claim for workers' compensation benefits with the Division of Claims Administration on September 26, 1990. She was subsequently terminated on October 10, 1990, without ever having returned to work.
On October 15, 1992, the plaintiff filed a formal complaint in the Claims Commission seeking workers' compensation benefits. In the petition, she alleged also that her termination from state employment was the direct result of her having filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits. For this alleged retaliatory discharge, the plaintiff sought damages in the amount of $300,000.
The Claims Commission, in an order entered December 8, 1993, awarded workers' compensation benefits to the plaintiff. In a subsequent order dated January 26, 1995, the Claims Commission, asserting its subject-matter jurisdiction, overruled the State's motion to dismiss the retaliatory discharge action and proceeded to hear the matter. The Commission determined that "[the claimant] has factually and legally established that she was discharged because she filed a workers' compensation claim." The Commission later heard evidence on damages and entered judgment for the plaintiff against the State in the amount of $300,000.
The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment. In its opinion, the court stated: We need not belabor the point nor engage in analysis where none is require . The Tennessee Claims Commission is without jurisdiction to entertain claims against the State for damages for the tort of retaliatory discharge."
II.
As a preliminary matter, because the State is sovereign, suit may be brought against the State only in such a manner and in such courts as the legislature may by law direct. Tenn. Const. art. I, § 17. In May 1984, the General Assembly enacted legislation creating the Tennessee Claims Commission. Act of May 24, 1984, ch. 972, 1984 Tenn. Pub. Acts 1026 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 9-8-301 to - 307 (1992 & Supp. 1998)). This legislation authorized the filing of suits against the State under certain conditions and bestowed exclusive jurisdiction over several enumerated categories of claims on the Claims Commission. The Commission's jurisdiction is limited as specified in the Act; thus, its jurisdiction cannot be altered except by the General Assembly. Hill v. Beeler, 199 Tenn. 325, 328-29, 286 S.W.2d 868, 869 (1956) (legislative acts conferring jurisdiction upon the Board of Claims to adjudicate claims against the State of Tennessee must be strictly construed).
As stated, the issue presented for our review is whether the Claims Commission has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine suits for retaliatory discharge filed by former state employees. The plaintiff conte
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|