Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co.
7 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 650, 833 S.W.2d 896, 60 U.S.L.W. 2679 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a common law right of action exists, a subsequently enacted statutory remedy is cumulative unless the legislature expressly states it is exclusive. Furthermore, punitive damages may only be awarded if a defendant's misconduct is proven by clear and convincing evidence to be intentional, fraudulent, malicious, or reckless, which must be determined in a bifurcated trial.
Facts:
- Carl E. Hodges was employed by S.C. Toof & Company for 19 years, during which he received 20 merit raises and had no disciplinary record.
- At the time of his termination, Hodges was an assistant warehouse supervisor.
- In the summer of 1987, Hodges was summoned for jury duty.
- Hodges served as a juror in a trial that lasted for three months, from mid-September to December 18, 1987.
- In early January 1988, shortly after completing his lengthy jury service, S.C. Toof & Company terminated Hodges's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl E. Hodges sued S.C. Toof & Company in a Tennessee trial court for retaliatory discharge.
- At trial, the jury returned a verdict for Hodges, awarding him $200,000 in compensatory damages and $375,000 in punitive damages.
- S.C. Toof & Company (Appellant) appealed the verdict to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's finding of retaliatory discharge but vacated the compensatory and punitive damage awards, holding that the remedy in T.C.A. § 22-4-108 was exclusive.
- Hodges (Appellant) then appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Tennessee statute providing for reinstatement and lost wages for employees discharged for jury service (T.C.A. § 22-4-108) provide the exclusive remedy, thereby precluding a common law tort claim for retaliatory discharge seeking compensatory and punitive damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Drowota, J.
No. The statutory remedy for retaliatory discharge for jury service is not exclusive and does not preclude a common law tort action for damages. The court reasoned that because it had previously recognized a common law action for retaliatory discharge in Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co. before the legislature amended the jury service statute, the statutory remedy is cumulative, not exclusive. The legislature is presumed to be aware of existing common law, and since it did not expressly state the statutory remedy was exclusive, the common law action remains available. The court also established a new, stricter standard for punitive damages, requiring clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, fraudulently, maliciously, or recklessly. To ensure fairness, it mandated bifurcated trials for punitive damages claims, where liability is determined first, and the amount of damages is decided in a separate phase considering specific factors like the defendant's wealth and the reprehensibility of their conduct.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - O'Brien, J.
Yes. The statutory remedy should be exclusive. This opinion argues that the majority is improperly legislating from the bench by expanding remedies beyond what the legislature provided. The dissent contends that when the legislature creates a new right (protection from discharge for jury service) and a specific remedy, that remedy should be deemed exclusive. The court's role is to interpret statutes, not to create additional public policy remedies where the legislature has already acted. However, since the majority opinion prevails, the author concurs with the new procedural framework established for awarding punitive damages.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts employment law in Tennessee by affirming that statutory remedies for retaliatory discharge are presumptively cumulative to common law remedies, thereby expanding potential recovery for wrongfully terminated employees. More profoundly, the case fundamentally reformed Tennessee's entire jurisprudence on punitive damages by introducing a higher evidentiary standard ('clear and convincing'), narrowing the predicate conduct to only the most egregious acts, and mandating a structured, bifurcated trial process. This new framework, designed to curb excessive awards and address due process concerns, provides greater predictability and procedural protection for defendants in all civil cases where punitive damages are sought.
