The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed a trial court’s ruling against a police officer on his claim of retaliatory discharge under Tennessee’s Public Protection Act. The Court held that the officer had proven that the sole reason he was discharged was retaliation for his refusal to participate in or remain silent about the police chief’s illegal activity.
Plaintiff Larry D. Williams was employed by the city of Burns as a police captain in the city’s police department. In 2008, then-captain Williams stopped the stepson of the city’s chief of police for speeding. Mr. Williams issued two traffic citations to the stepson. The police chief pressured Mr. Williams into “fixing” his stepson’s traffic tickets by converting them into warnings. Ticket fixing is illegal in Tennessee.
Later, Mr. Williams complained to the city’s mayor that the police chief had insisted that Mr. Williams fix the stepson’s traffic tickets. When the police chief learned of this conversation, he cited Mr. Williams for violating the department’s chain-of-command rules by reporting the ticket fixing to the mayor. The mayor ordered the police chief to file the stepson’s tickets as citations, not warnings. A short time later, the police chief fired Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams filed a retaliatory discharge lawsuit against the city under Tennessee’s Public Protection Act (TPPA), sometimes called the Whistleblower Act, which makes it illegal to fire an employee solely in retaliation for refusing to participate in or remain silent about illegal activity. Mr. Williams alleged that he was fired for refusing to participate in the police chief’s illegal ticket fixing or remain silent about it. In its defense, the city claimed that Mr. Williams was discharged because, among other things, he violated the police department’s chain-of-command rules by reporting the ticket fixing to the mayor.
At trial, the court held in favor of the city. It found that retaliation was part of the motivation behind the city’s discharge of Mr. Williams, but that there were other reasons as well, including Mr. Williams’ violation of the chain of command. The trial court ruled that Mr. Williams had not proven that retaliation was the sole reason for the discharge, as required under the TPPA. Mr. Williams appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence did not support the trial court’s decision.
The Supreme Court accepted the city’s appeal to address the TPPA’s “sole reason” requirement. The Court held that, even if Mr. Williams went outside the chain of command in talking to the mayor about the police chief’s ticket fixing, speaking out about illegal activity in the workplace is conduct that is clearly protected under the TPPA. Consequently, by asserting that it discharged Mr. Williams for violating the chain-of-command rule, the city, in effect, admitted that it discharged Mr. Williams in retaliation for his refusal to remain silent about the police chief’s illegal ticket fixing. The Court held that the evidence showed that the other reasons given by the city were merely pretext for retaliation.
Considering all of the evidence, especially the fact that the city essentially admitted retaliation, the Supreme Court held that Mr. Williams had proven that retaliation was the city’s real reason — and its sole reason — for discharging him. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and returned the case to the trial court for an award of damages to Mr. Williams.
Read the Larry D. Williams v. City of Burns opinion, authored by Justice Holly Kirby.