TN COURT OF APPEALS ADDRESSES DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE CLAIM
The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently addressed discriminatory discharge in a noteworthy opinion for employers. In
Demastus v. University Health System, Inc., the employee alleged that she was terminated because she was perceived as being a drug addict, while the employer defended on the perception that she was a thief. The plaintiff-employee was a nurse who was fired when the hospital’s medication management system showed a discrepancy under her name. She sued her employer, a hospital, under the Tennessee Disability Act (TDA) for discriminatory discharge. She argued that the employer fired her because she was perceived as being a drug addict. The hospital argued that it fired her because it believed she was stealing medication.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the employee’s case for two primary reasons. First, addiction to a controlled substance is not a disability under the TDA. Thus, even if the employer truly believed the employee was a drug addict, she would still lose because addiction is not a disability as defined under the TDA. Secondly, the employee was not able to show that the employer’s stated reasons for firing her had no basis in fact.
In many employment cases, the employer often bears the burden to show a “legitimate, non-discriminatory reason” for terminating an employee. The court in
Demastus found that the employer was able to prove that its legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating the employee was due to its honest belief that she was stealing medication. Employer’s proof included data from its electronic medication management system and other records, including patients’ charts, which the employee could not disprove or show was factually false. The
Demastus case shows why it is important for employers to keep good records to help document the reasons for terminating an employee.
Practice pointers to help employers:
- Treat all employees who are similarly situated the same. When an employer treats a member of a protected class (race, gender, etc.) differently than others, there can be an inference that the employer is biased against the protected class. Similarly situated employees should be subject to the same policies, applied uniformly where possible.
- Make sure performance evaluations are honest. Conflicting evaluations raise issues about the true reason for an employer’s termination of an employee. Evaluations can be great tools if used appropriately.
- Document occurrences impacting employees’ work performance. Employers often rely on memory when stating a reason for terminating. The better practice is to document matters involving employees improperly or insufficiently doing their jobs at the time such incident is observed. Even a simple journal or note in the employee’s personnel file may be helpful to justify an adverse action against an employee.
- Investigate before taking action. The law requires employers to have an “honest belief” about the reasons for terminating or taking any adverse action against an employee. An easy way to verify an employer’s “honest belief” is to show that the employer conducted an appropriate investigation into the reasons for the employment action, even if it is an informal investigation. Employers should make notes of any investigation to further support this “honest belief” determination.
Employers cannot prevent disgruntled employees from filing lawsuits, but they can take steps to proactively help defend themselves from such claims. If you have questions about actions needed to help protect your business, contact our employment lawyers at (731) 423-2414.
