Lemon v. Williamson Cnty. Sch.

MELANIE LEMON v. WILLIAMSON COUNTY SCHOOLS ET AL.

No. M2018-01878-COA-R3-CV

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

June 5, 2019 Session

September 23, 2019

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County

No. 2017-320

Joseph A. Woodruff, Judge

The plaintiff, a former tenured schoolteacher, sued the Williamson County Board of Education and three administrators alleging that she was forced to resign after the defendants "bullied, stalked, intimidated, and defamed" her during the 2015-2016 school year. She asserted claims for wrongful termination, breach of contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed all of the claims asserted in the original complaint pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted but permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint to revise and restate her claims for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Following discovery, the court summarily dismissed the two remaining claims as asserted in the amended complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) dismissal of her wrongful termination and negligence claims, and the summary dismissal of her claims for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We affirm the trial court's determination the plaintiff's negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are barred by the Governmental Tort Liability Act and Teachers' Tenure Act, respectively. We have also determined that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence of a compensable injury in her claim for breach of contract. As for the plaintiff's claim of wrongful termination, we respectfully disagree with the trial court's determination that the doctrine of constructive discharge is inapplicable to wrongful termination claims under the Teachers' Tenure Act. Therefore, we reverse the dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful termination claim and remand this claim for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Remanded

FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ANDY D. BENNETT and RICHARD H. DINKINS, JJ., joined.

Constance F. Mann, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellant, Melanie Lemon.

Elisabeth M. Carson, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellees, Kathryn Donnelley, Denise Goodwin, Mike Looney, and Williamson County Government.

OPINION

Melanie Lemon ("Plaintiff") was a tenured, second-grade teacher at Walnut Grove Elementary School in Williamson County, Tennessee at all times material to this action. On June 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Williamson County Board of Education, Williamson County Superintendent Mike Looney, Assistant Superintendent Denise Goodwin, and Walnut Grove Principal Dr. Kathryn Donnelly (collectively, "Defendants"). As is relevant to the issues on appeal, the Complaint asserted a claim against Dr. Looney, Ms. Goodwin, and Principal Donnelly (collectively, "the Individual Defendants") for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and claims against the Williamson County Board of Education ("the Board") for wrongful termination under the Teachers' Tenure Act, breach of contract, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

On October 12, 2017, the trial court found that the Complaint failed to state claims for wrongful termination, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.¹ Although the trial court found Plaintiff's original claim for breach of contract alleged sufficient facts to make a prima facie case, the court found it failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted because the employment contract at issue was not attached to the Complaint as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 10.03. Similarly, the court found Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for "outrageous" conduct to support her IIED claim, but it also found Plaintiff failed to attribute the alleged conduct to particular defendants. Therefore, the court dismissed both claims without prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to revise and restate these two claims. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 6, 2017, and Defendants filed timely answers.

On June 4, 2018, Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the two remaining claims, breach of contract and IIED. The trial court granted the motions on September 25, 2018. This appeal followed.

On appeal, Plaintiff challenges the dismissal of five of her claims: (1) wrongful termination, (2) negligence, (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (4) breach of contract, and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because our review of each decision requires the application of different standards of review, we will address them separately.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss "challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff's proof or evidence." Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011). Resolving a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss requires examination of the pleadings alone. Id. "A defendant who files a motion to dismiss 'admits the truth of all of the relevant and material allegations contained in the complaint, but . . . asserts that the allegations fail to establish a cause of action.'" Id. (quoting Brown v. Tenn. Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tenn. 2010)).

When considering a motion to dismiss, courts "must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences." Id. (quoting Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28, 31-32 (Tenn. 2007)). "A trial court should grant a motion to dismiss 'only when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.'" Id. (quoting Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int'l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002)). We review the trial court's legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint de novo. Id.

This court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo, without a presumption of correctness. Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 250 (Tenn. 2015). Accordingly, we must make a fresh determination of whether the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been satisfied. Id.; Hunter v. Brown, 955 S.W.2d 49, 50 (Tenn. 1997). In so doing, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Godfrey v. Ruiz, 90 S.W.3d 692, 695 (Tenn. 2002).

Summary judgment should be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. When the party moving for summary judgment does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it may satisfy its burden of production "either (1) by affirmatively negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party's evidence at thesummary judgment stage is insufficient to establish the nonmoving party's claim or defense." Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 264 (emphasis in original).

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56, the nonmoving party may not rest on the allegations or denials in its pleadings. Id. at 265. Instead, the nonmoving party must respond with specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. A fact is material "if it must be decided in order to resolve the substantive claim or defense at which the motion is directed." Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 215 (Tenn. 1993). A "genuine issue" exists if "a reasonable jury could legitimately resolve that fact in favor of one side or the other." Id.

ANALYSIS

I. CLAIMS DISMISSED PURSUANT TO TENN. R. CIV. P. 12.02(6)

The Complaint asserted that Plaintiff "became the target of a plan to coerce her resignation" during the 2016-2017 school year, when she "was continually stalked, bullied, and harassed through meetings, e-mails, and directives." The trial court accurately summarized the alleged conduct as

disciplining and interfering with [Plaintiff's] charity attempt for a co-worker that took place outside of school; providing her with a false and inaccurate work review for the purpose of forcing a resignation; accusing her of child abuse for the purpose of forcing a resignation; placing cameras in her classroom for the purpose of intim[idating] and forcing a resignation; forcing a human monitor in her class room for the purpose of harassing and intimidating her; threatening the community and/or co-workers for speaking on her behalf; threatening the community that she would not work in the State of Tennessee if they testified on her behalf; telling the community that she has anger issues; telling the community that she is a child abuse[r] with no complaint from the child, or his/her family; and threatening co-workers and other teachers in Williamson County that if they stood up for Ms. Lemon or tried to protest, "remember who signs your paychecks."

The Complaint alleged that Plaintiff was suspended without pay for three days because of the child abuse allegation, and the Board failed to follow the required time frames and provide her with the required documents when she attempted to appeal the decision. It also alleged that Plaintiff resigned on May 12, 2017, because she could no longer endure her working conditions.

Plaintiff asserted that Defendants' conduct made her working conditions "so difficult or...