Kighwaunda M. YARDLEY v. HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING SYSTEMS, LLC
2015 Tenn. LEXIS 630, 470 S.W.3d 800, 2015 WL 5545620 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A job applicant does not have a cause of action under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act against a prospective employer for retaliatory failure to hire, even if the refusal to hire is based on the applicant's past or potential workers' compensation claim.
Facts:
- Beginning in 1998, Kighwaunda M. Yardley worked as a housekeeping aide at the University Medical Center (“the Hospital”).
- In 2010, Yardley was injured on the job and began receiving workers’ compensation benefits, performing light duty work as of July 2012.
- The Hospital contracted with Hospital Housekeeping Systems (“the Company”) to take over housekeeping services starting July 1, 2012.
- As part of the contract, the Company agreed to interview the Hospital's current staff and hired most of them, but did not interview or hire Yardley, who was still on light duty.
- After being released for full duty, Yardley sought a job with the Company.
- In August 2012, a Company Vice President, Michael Cox, allegedly told Yardley that the Company would not hire anyone receiving workers’ compensation benefits.
- Cox stated in an internal email that hiring Yardley “would seem to be a Workers[’] Comp claim waiting to happen” and advised against it.
- The Company ultimately did not hire Yardley.
Procedural Posture:
- Kighwaunda M. Yardley sued Hospital Housekeeping Systems in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
- The U.S. District Court certified a question of law to the Supreme Court of Tennessee to determine if a cause of action for retaliatory failure to hire exists under state law.
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 a job applicant have a cause of action for retaliatory failure to hire under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act against a prospective employer who refuses to hire them because of a past or potential workers' compensation claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Sharon G. Lee
No, a job applicant does not have a cause of action for retaliatory failure to hire under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act. The Act's protections and obligations apply only within an established employer-employee relationship, which does not exist between a prospective employer and a job applicant. The court distinguished this situation from retaliatory discharge, where an existing employment relationship is wrongfully terminated. A job applicant is not an 'employee' as defined by the Act, and therefore a prospective employer has no obligation to them under the Act. Creating such a cause of action would be an unwarranted judicial exception to Tennessee's strong employment-at-will doctrine; any such change must come from the legislature, which has not created a statutory remedy for retaliatory failure to hire.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength of the employment-at-will doctrine in Tennessee by drawing a bright line between the rights of current employees and mere job applicants. The court clearly deferred to the legislature, signaling that the creation of new public policy exceptions to at-will employment should be a legislative, not a judicial, function. This holding leaves a gap in protection for individuals with prior work injuries, as they are protected from being fired for filing a claim but have no recourse if they are not hired in the first place for the same reason. The ruling solidifies that the duties and protections of the Workers' Compensation Act are triggered only upon the formation of an employment relationship.
