Holly Kirby, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Sharon G. Lee, C.J., and Cornelia A. Clark, Gary R. Wade, and Jeffrey S. Bivins, JJ., joined.
We granted permission to appeal in this case to address whether the evidence established that the plaintiff police officer was discharged solely in retaliation for conduct protected under the Tennessee Public Protection Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 501-304, sometimes called the Whistleblower Act. The chief of police for the defendant municipality had the plaintiff police officer "fix" a traffic ticket for a relative. After the plaintiff officer complained to the mayor that the police chief had pressured him into illegal ticket fixing, the police chief discharged the plaintiff. The defendant municipality claimed that it terminated the officer's employment because he violated the chain of command by reporting the ticket fixing to the mayor, and also because he undermined
By the time Plaintiff/Appellee Larry D. Williams ("Captain Williams") met Jerry D. Sumerour, Jr. ("Chief Sumerour"), Captain Williams had worked in law enforcement for a number of years in several smaller communities in Tennessee. When they met, Chief Sumerour was employed by the Police Department of the City of Burns, Tennessee ("the Department"), a small police department with just a few officers. The two men became friends. In 2007, Captain Williams began working for the Department as the captain detective. At all relevant times, Chief Sumerour was the Chief of Police for the Department, and Captain Williams was his second in command. Captain Williams and Chief Sumerour socialized together, and Captain Williams came to know Chief Sumerour's family.
On approximately March 20, 2008, Captain Williams drafted a memorandum for Chief Sumerour that set forth a new Department policy against "ticket fixing." The new policy stated that, once an officer in the field issues a traffic citation, the issuing officer is not permitted to cancel the ticket or convert it into a warning.
Later that evening, Chief Sumerour called Captain Williams and asked him to come to the Chief's home and bring Cody's traffic citations with him. When Captain Williams arrived, Chief Sumerour walked out to his car. Citing pressure from his wife, Chief Sumerour asked Captain Williams to write "warning" on the traffic tickets and give the tickets to the Chief. Initially, Captain Williams refused, citing the new ticket-fixing policy and expressing concern that they both could lose their jobs for breaking the laws against ticket fixing. When Chief Sumerour persisted, Captain Williams took off his badge, placed it on the dashboard of the car, and asked if there would be repercussions if he refused. According to Chief Sumerour, he told Captain Williams that there would not be repercussions if he refused.
The next day, a Saturday, Captain Williams was scheduled to go to the Department at 2:30 p.m. to go on duty. Chief Sumerour called Captain Williams and asked him to come by his residence on his way to the Department and pick up the traffic citations. Captain Williams did so.
When he arrived at the station with the citations, Captain Williams noticed that the car belonging to the mayor for the City of Burns, Jeff Bishop ("Mayor Bishop"), was parked out front. When he went inside, Captain Williams sought out Mayor Bishop and complained to him that Chief Sumerour had pressured him into "fixing" his stepson's traffic citations by converting them into warnings. He told the Mayor that he had not wanted to alter Cody's traffic tickets but was afraid that Chief Sumerour would fire him if he refused. Mayor Bishop told Captain Williams that Chief Sumerour had briefed him on the situation early that morning, but the Mayor offered no further response. After meeting with the Mayor, Captain Williams erased the "warning" notation on the tickets and placed them in Chief Sumerour's box for them to be filed with the juvenile court as actual citations.
Chief Sumerour said that, on Monday, he met with the Mayor, City Attorney Tim Potter, and an assistant district attorney about the incident. According to Chief Sumerour, they all advised him that both tickets should remain warnings, so the Chief wrote "warning" on the tickets a second time.
That same day, Captain Williams called Chief Sumerour and asked whether he had turned in Cody's traffic citations. Chief Sumerour responded "in a very firm tone and very unfriendly tone that they would remain warnings."
A few days later, on Thursday, March 27, 2008, Chief Sumerour informed Captain Williams that, by discussing the ticket-fixing incident with the Mayor, Captain Williams had violated the Department's rule on the chain of command. Chief Sumerour
Captain Williams went to Mayor Bishop's home to meet with him again. He told Mayor Bishop that Chief Sumerour had pressured him into altering the traffic citations, and that he believed that Chief Sumerour was "trying to get rid of [him] and fire [him] because of the tickets that were written." Mayor Bishop assured Captain Williams that he would not let that happen, and that he would have Chief Sumerour turn in the original traffic citations. After consulting with the City Attorney, Mayor Bishop contacted Chief Sumerour and told him that he had concluded that Cody's traffic tickets should not be warnings but should instead be turned in to the juvenile court as citations. Chief Sumerour told the Mayor that he disagreed.
Early the next morning, Mayor Bishop called Chief Sumerour and advised him that he had until noon that day to turn Cody's traffic tickets in to the juvenile court as citations. If Chief Sumerour did not do so, the Mayor said, he would be suspended. An hour later, the Mayor contacted Chief Sumerour and enhanced the threatened punishment to termination of the Chief's employment. This prompted Chief Sumerour to summon Captain Williams to his office and direct him to reissue new traffic citations to Cody, identical to the original ones.
In the same time frame, Chief Sumerour issued Captain Williams a warning for not answering his department-issued cell phone while he was the on-call detective. Chief Sumerour also wrote up Captain Williams for violating a school-zone policy, but he later rescinded this write-up when it became evident that there had been no violation of the school-zone policy. Prior to the ticket-fixing incident, Chief Sumerour had never disciplined Captain Williams.
In an attempt to defuse the situation, Mayor Bishop asked Captain Williams to attend a meeting with the Mayor and Chief Sumerour. Captain Williams declined the Mayor's invitation, explaining that he felt that things between the Chief and him needed to "cool down" first. The Mayor did not insist that Captain Williams attend the meeting.
The meeting between the Mayor and Chief Sumerour took place on April 4, 2008, without Captain Williams present. Chief Sumerour would later claim that the Mayor told him in that meeting that Captain Williams refused to attend because he had lost respect for the Chief, did not trust the Chief, and thought the Chief "was a piece of crap[] and [] needed to be fired."
Shortly after that, Chief Sumerour was told that Captain Williams had been discussing the ticket-fixing incident with the other three police officers in the Department. Chief Sumerour decided to solicit written statements from all three officers. All three written statements indicated that Chief Sumerour had asked for a written account of their discussions with Captain
Officer Ed Richardson said in his statement that Captain Williams spoke to him about "the situation," but "at no time did Captain Williams ever belittle or put down the Chief." Officer Stephen Sullivan's statement recalled that Captain Williams "went into some details concerning the law side of the stop and asked my opinion on the stop." According to Officer Sullivan, Captain Williams asked Officer Sullivan if he would step into Captain Williams' position as captain if something were to happen to Chief Sumerour and Captain Williams were made police chief. Officer Sullivan's statement recited that Captain Williams commented that he "hoped that it didn't come to that."
Officer Tase Sturgill's statement recited conversations indicating that Captain Williams had a decidedly negative attitude toward Chief Sumerour. Officer Sturgill recounted in his statement that Captain Williams said that he "no longer had any respect for Chief Sumerour," that he could not "salvage any respect for Chief Sumerour," and "that he had told the mayor that he would fire Chief Sumerour" for his involvement in the ticket-fixing incident. Recalling discussions that purportedly took place prior to the incident, Officer Sturgill asserted that Captain Williams had "always" told him that Chief Sumerour "wanted to fire [him], but [Captain Williams] talked him out of it...."
Soon after he obtained the officers' statements, Chief Sumerour arranged to meet with Mayor Bishop and City Attorney Potter to inform them that he had decided to terminate Captain Williams' employment. Chief Sumerour later recounted in a written statement that he explained to the Mayor and the City Attorney "the importance of [Chief Sumerour] not losing control of [his] department and how important it [is] to maintain the respect of [his] patrolmen." His decision, Chief Sumerour said, was based on "all the information gathered the last few days and the statements" of the other police officers. Chief Sumerour emphasized: "Capt. Williams' comments concerning me over the last few days can not and will not be tolerated. I can not have an employee trying to sabatoge [sic] the entire department." Chief Sumerour noted in the statement that Mayor Bishop and the City Attorney supported his decision.
On April 9, 2008, nineteen days after Captain Williams issued the traffic citations to Cody, Chief Sumerour terminated Captain Williams' employment. The reason Chief Sumerour gave for the termination was insubordination by violating the Department's chain-of-command rules and by undermining the Chief's authority with the other police officers.
On May 2, 2008, Captain Williams filed this lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Dickson County against the City of Burns, asserting a claim of retaliatory discharge pursuant to the Tennessee Public Protection Act ("TPPA"), Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304. Captain Williams alleged in his complaint that the City wrongfully discharged him for "refusing to remain silent about the illegal actions of being forced to alter the citations issued to the Chief's stepson." He asserted that the termination of his employment was "for trumped up reasons in order to discredit him."
In October 2010, the trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment. It held that Captain Williams had "failed to establish that the [City's] motivation for the discharge of [Captain Williams] was based solely on [Captain Williams'] refusal to participate in, or remain silent about, the alleged illegal activity." Captain Williams appealed.
On August 30, 2012, the trial court conducted a bench trial in the matter. Both Captain Williams and Chief Sumerour testified at trial, giving substantially similar accounts of the facts. Officer Sturgill also testified, essentially to the same effect as the written statement he had given to Chief Sumerour. Captain Williams denied talking to Officer Sturgill about the incident and added, "I would never have talked to him about the events between me and Chief Sumerour."
At the conclusion of the proof, the trial court rendered an oral ruling in favor of the City. At the outset of its oral ruling, the trial court held that Captain Williams' lawsuit did not involve a refusal to remain silent:
The plaintiff initially refused to participate in fixing the ticket, but later relented. But that's enough to bring it under the statute. There's no proof that he was required to be silent, asked to be silent, did remain silent, didn't remain silent. Seems to me there was a whole lot of talking about this. So the silence factor just does not apply. It's whether he refused to participate. And, again, he initially, the Court finds as a matter of fact, that he initially refused to participate.
Addressing the reasons for Captain Williams' discharge, the trial court found that one reason was Captain Williams' initial refusal to convert Cody's traffic citations into warnings: "I don't think there's any question ... [that] the plaintiff's initial refusal to modify this ticket, fix this ticket, so to speak, was a factor in his discharge.... And it's even likely that this refusal began the investigation which ultimately led to his discharge." It commented that all of the discharge factors were "intricately interwoven." The trial court also found, however, that the proof established that Captain Williams had been disloyal to Chief Sumerour by "attempting to subvert the loyalty of his officers." It held:
The trial court concluded, then, that the termination of Captain Williams' employment was not based solely on his refusal to participate in ticket fixing. As a result, the trial court ruled in favor of the City.
The trial court subsequently issued a written order, stating only that Captain Williams had "failed to establish under the [TPPA] that [the City's] motivation for the discharge of his employment was based solely on his refusal to participate in the alleged illegal activity." The order did not incorporate the trial court's oral ruling, by reference or otherwise. Captain Williams appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed. Williams v. City of Burns, No. M2012-02423-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 4068180, at *6 (Tenn.Ct.App. Aug. 12, 2013). It first addressed the City's assertion that Captain Williams' employment was terminated based on violation of the chain of command. Id. at *3-4. The Court of Appeals observed that requiring Captain Williams to report the illegal ticket fixing directly to Chief Sumerour, the person who had pressured him into the illegal conduct, was contrary to the intent of the TPPA to allow employees to report illegal activity and protect them when they do. Id. at *3. It held that Captain Williams' act of disclosing the Chief's ticket fixing to the Mayor was protected by the TPPA, so the City's termination of the Captain's employment for violating the chain of command "cannot stand." Id. at *4.
The Court of Appeals next addressed the trial court's finding that Chief Sumerour terminated Captain Williams' employment, in part, because he subverted the Chief's authority. It noted that Chief Sumerour had characterized this as "insubordination," which it defined as being "disobedient." Id. at *6. It found that Captain Williams' comments about Chief Sumerour, as recounted in the written statements of the three other officers, did not constitute disobedience or defiance of the Chief's authority. Id. The Court of Appeals also "question[ed] [Chief] Sumerour's motives" and found that he was "simply not credible." Id. Consequently, it held that Chief Sumerour's assertion that he terminated the Captain's employment for insubordination had "no basis in fact and did not actually motivate" the termination,
The City argues that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's finding on causation. It contends that the trial court's holding reflected a credibility determination in favor of Chief Sumerour's testimony that he terminated Captain Williams' employment partly for conduct not protected under the TPPA, namely, Captain Williams' insubordination and his attempts to undermine the Chief's authority by "bad-mouthing" him to the other officers in the Department. The City notes that a trial court's factual finding based on credibility may be reversed on appeal only where the record contains clear and convincing evidence contrary to that finding, and it argues that the record in this case contains no such evidence. Therefore, the City argues, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's decision.
Because this case was tried before the trial court without a jury, we review the trial court's findings of fact de novo on the record, with a presumption that the trial court's findings are correct unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Tenn. R.App. P. 13(d); see Garrett v. City of Memphis, 327 S.W.3d 37, 40 (Tenn.Ct.App.2010). This means that we may not disturb the trial court's findings unless we determine "that the aggregate weight of the evidence demonstrates that a finding of fact other than the one found by the trial court is more probably true." Nashville Ford Tractor, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 194 S.W.3d 415, 425 (Tenn.Ct. App.2005). We review questions of law de novo, with no presumption of correctness. Staples v. CBL & Assocs., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83, 88 (Tenn.2000); Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn.1997).
We begin our analysis with the doctrine of employment at will. "The employment-at-will doctrine is a bedrock of Tennessee common law." Franklin v. Swift Transp. Co., 210 S.W.3d 521, 527 (Tenn.Ct.App.2006). Indeed, it "is the fundamental principle controlling the relationship between employers and employees." Mason v. Seaton, 942 S.W.2d 470, 474 (Tenn.1997). Under that doctrine, employment for an indefinite period of time may be terminated by either the employer or the employee at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. See Sykes v. Chattanooga Hous. Auth., 343 S.W.3d 18, 26-27 (Tenn.2011); Guy v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 79 S.W.3d 528, 534-35 (Tenn. 2002). Stated another way: "The long standing rule in this State is that an employee-at-will may be discharged without breach of contract for good cause, bad cause or no cause at all, without being thereby guilty of legal wrong." Harney v. Meadowbrook Nursing Ctr., 784 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Tenn.1990); see also Haynes v. Formac Stables, Inc., 463 S.W.3d 34, 36 (Tenn.2015). The employment-at-will doctrine "recognizes that employers need the freedom to make their own business judgments without interference from the courts." Mason, 942 S.W.2d at 474.
This traditional rule, however, is not absolute; some restrictions have been imposed on the right of the employer to discharge an employee. Guy, 79 S.W.3d at 535. Tennessee has recognized a common-law claim for retaliatory discharge
The public-policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine adopted in Chism afforded protection under the common law to employees who refuse to participate in illegal activities or remain silent about them. Chism, 762 S.W.2d at 555-57; see also Guy, 79 S.W.3d at 535; Mason, 942 S.W.2d at 474. "[T]he law of retaliatory discharge stems from Tennessee public policy that an employee should not be placed in the moral, ethical and legal dilemma of being forced to choose between reporting or participating in illegal activities and keeping his job." Franklin, 210 S.W.3d at 530.
In addition to recognizing a common-law claim of retaliatory discharge,
The TPPA, Tennessee's whistleblower legislation, was enacted in 1990, two years after the Court's decision in Chism. See 1990 Tenn. Pub. Acts 771 (codified as amended Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-1-304 (2014)). The TPPA gave statutory
While the TPPA is sometimes referred to as Tennessee's "Whistleblower Act," this informal name somewhat oversimplifies the Act, in that the TPPA "includes both (1) discharge in retaliation for refusing to remain silent about illegal activities, usually referred to as `whistleblowing,' and (2) discharge in retaliation for refusing to participate in illegal activities. The claims are similar but distinct." VanCleave, 2009 WL 3518211, at *7 & n.3. As explained in VanCleave:
Id. at *8 (citation and footnotes omitted); see Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 437-38 (Tenn.2011); Sykes v. Chattanooga Hous. Auth., 343 S.W.3d 18, 27 (Tenn.2011).
A statutory claim under the TPPA differs from the common-law claim for retaliatory discharge in two important respects. First, the common-law retaliatory discharge claim is available only to private-sector employees, but the TPPA extends protection to public employees as well.
As a public employee, Captain Williams' claim for retaliatory discharge is based only on the TPPA, not the common law. At the time Captain Williams' cause of action accrued, the TPPA provided:
Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-1-304 (Supp. 2009) (emphasis added). Overall, a claim under the TPPA includes four elements:
Sykes, 343 S.W.3d at 26-27 (citing Voss v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 958 S.W.2d 342, 344 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997)). The first and third elements are not in dispute in this case. The City clearly disputes the fourth element — whether Chief Sumerour terminated Captain Williams solely because of Captain Williams' refusal to participate in or remain silent about the ticket-fixing activity. The second element, whether Captain Williams refused to participate in or remain silent about illegal activity, is only partly in dispute.
At trial, the trial court was required to apply the familiar McDonnell
Gossett, 320 S.W.3d at 780-81 (citations omitted). Despite the fact that "intermediate evidentiary burdens shift back and forth under this framework," the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the employer engaged in unlawful retaliation remains at all times on the plaintiff employee.
As the plaintiff employee, Captain Williams had the initial burden at trial of presenting evidence to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge.
At trial, Captain Williams contended that Chief Sumerour discharged him (1) in retaliation for refusing to participate in an illegal activity, i.e., ticket fixing, and (2) in retaliation for refusing to remain silent about the illegal activity, or "whistleblowing." As noted above, these claims are "similar but distinct." VanCleave, 2009 WL 3518211, at *7.
The trial court implicitly found that Captain Williams made out a prima facie case at trial. It observed that Captain Williams initially refused to alter the traffic citations he issued to Chief Sumerour's stepson but eventually relented and converted the citations to warnings. The trial court held that Captain Williams' initial refusal to convert the citations to warnings was "enough to bring it under [the TPPA]." Thus, it held that Captain Williams made out a prima facie case under the TPPA by showing that he refused to participate in the Chief's illegal ticket fixing, and that the requisite causal connection existed between his discharge and his refusal to participate.
At this point in its analysis, however, the trial court went awry. Addressing Captain Williams' "refusal to remain silent" claim in its oral ruling, the trial court stated: "There's no proof that he was required to be silent, asked to be silent, did remain silent, didn't remain silent.... So the silence factor just does not apply. It's whether he refused to participate." We gather from these comments that the trial court reasoned that, in order for Captain Williams' conduct to constitute protected refusal to remain silent under the TPPA, he first had to prove that he had been instructed by a City official to "remain silent" about the illegal ticket fixing.
The Court of Appeals reversed this holding, quoting the Mason Court's rejection of a similar argument: "It is axiomatic that an employer who is engaged in illegal activity does not want that activity reported to those officials who are responsible for enforcing the law." Williams, 2013 WL 4068180, at *3 (quoting Mason, 942 S.W.2d at 475). The Court of Appeals commented that requiring a plaintiff to first prove that he had been instructed to remain silent "would be contrary to the clear intent of the statute for employees to report illegal activity and to be protected when they do so." Id.; see Mason, 942 S.W.2d at 476 ("Remaining silent is the opposite of speaking out, and refusing to remain silent is the same as speaking out. The clear meaning of the statute is that employees have the absolute right to speak out about illegal activities in their workplaces.").
The Court of Appeals' analysis on this issue is spot on. It was clearly erroneous for the trial court to intimate in its holding that, in order to assert a claim based on refusal to remain silent, Captain Williams first needed to show that he had been directed to remain silent about the ticket fixing. See Mason, 942 S.W.2d at 476 ("This statute does not require a showing that the employer instructed the employee to refrain from reporting the illegal activity; consequently, lack of such evidence is not fatal to the cause of action."). The soundness of this reasoning is confirmed by the evidence in this case. The irate written warning Chief Sumerour immediately fired off to Captain Williams when he learned that the Captain had spoken to the Mayor about the ticket fixing shows that, even though Captain Williams was not explicitly told to remain silent about the
Thus, in addition to the refusal to participate found by the trial court, we hold that Captain Williams made out a prima facie case by showing that he refused to remain silent about the Chief's illegal ticket fixing, and that there was a causal connection between his discharge and his refusal to remain silent.
"Establishing a prima facie case of [retaliatory discharge] creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer unlawfully [retaliated] against the employee." Wilson, 104 S.W.3d at 50 (citing St. Mary's Honor Ctr., 509 U.S. at 506, 113 S.Ct. 2742; Gonzalez v. El Dia, Inc., 304 F.3d 63, 68-69 (1st Cir.2002)). Once Captain Williams presented evidence at trial establishing a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden shifted to the City to articulate a non-retaliatory reason for his discharge. Newcomb v. Kohler Co., 222 S.W.3d 368, 389 (Tenn.Ct.App.2006) (citing Anderson v. Standard Register Co., 857 S.W.2d 555, 559 (Tenn.1993)); see also Allen, 240 S.W.3d at 820 (analyzing action brought pursuant to the Tennessee Human Rights Act).
The employer's burden of production at trial at this point is affected by the causation requirement for a TPPA retaliation claim, as opposed to the burden of proof for a common-law retaliation claim. As noted above, for a common-law retaliation claim, the plaintiff employee need only show that the unlawful retaliation was a "substantial factor" in the employment decision, while under the TPPA, the plaintiff must ultimately establish that retaliation is the "sole" reason for the termination of his employment. Consequently, the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine framework must be refined for a claim under the TPPA. In articulating a non-retaliatory reason for discharging the employee, the defendant employer in a TPPA case need not proffer evidence that unlawful retaliation was no part of its decision to terminate employment. Rather, the employer need only introduce admissible evidence showing that unlawful retaliation was not the sole cause of the employment action. Wilson, 104 S.W.3d at 50 (citing Bauer v. Albemarle Corp., 169 F.3d 962, 966 (5th Cir. 1999)). That is, the employer must proffer evidence that, even if retaliation was a motivation for the discharge, there was at least one non-retaliatory reason as well.
The burden to submit evidence at trial of a non-retaliatory motive is one of production, not persuasion. See Burrus v. United Telephone Co. of Kansas, Inc., 683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir.1982); Womack v. Munson, 619 F.2d 1292, 1296 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089 (noting that, at this point, the employer "need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered [non-retaliatory] reasons"). Because retaliatory discharge is an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, the employer's proffered non-retaliatory reason for discharging the employee need not be a sound one; it need only be a reason other than retaliation.
In this case, the City sought to satisfy its burden of production by submitting the testimony of Chief Sumerour and his written
To corroborate Chief Sumerour's testimony, the City submitted the written statements of the other officers in the Department — Officers Sullivan, Richardson, and Sturgill. The City relied in particular on Officer Sturgill's assertion that Captain Williams had in the past told him that Chief Sumerour wanted to fire Officer Sturgill, but Captain Williams "talked him out of it."
The trial court apparently determined that the City had proffered non-retaliatory reasons for Captain Williams' discharge, specifically, "disloyalty" and "subverting the authority of the chief and the violation of the chain of command." The trial court commented that these reasons for Captain Williams' discharge were "intricately interwoven" and "all intertwined" with Captain Williams' refusal to participate in the ticket fixing, but it also characterized them as "separate instances."
As noted above, the trial court erroneously held that Captain Williams' claim did not involve a refusal to remain silent about illegal ticket fixing. This crucial misstep at the outset of the analysis hindered the trial court's assessment of the City's evidence on its claimed non-retaliatory reasons. Specifically, after Chief Sumerour stated that his discharge of Captain
As the evidence in this case demonstrates, "[i]mproperly applied, a chain-of-command policy will undermine fair employment policies." Fleming v Correctional Healthcare Solutions, Inc., 164 N.J. 90, 751 A.2d 1035, 1040 (2000) (citing Gares v. Willingboro Township, 90 F.3d 720, 724 (3rd Cir.1996) (describing municipality's chain-of-command procedure as trapping plaintiff between "the Scylla of enduring [a supervisor]'s offensive conduct and the Charybdis of possible termination for violating the chain-of-command rules" by reporting supervisor's conduct to higher authority)). "[T]o discipline an employee for going over the head of a supervisor allegedly involved in illegal ... workplace activity undermines exactly what the Legislature had in mind when it passed the Whistleblower Act."
The City, however, also produced evidence of a non-retaliatory reason for discharging Captain Williams — that he undermined the Chief's authority within the Department by "bad-mouthing" the Chief to the Mayor and to other police officers. We can infer that the trial court held that the City's evidence of such "bad-mouthing" satisfied its burden to produce evidence of a non-retaliatory reason for the discharge. The record supports such a holding.
Thus, even though one of the City's proffered reasons for Captain Williams' discharge was effectively an admission of retaliatory motive, the City submitted admissible evidence of a non-retaliatory reason, thereby satisfying its burden of production. This rebutted the presumption that the City terminated Captain Williams solely for refusing to participate in or remain silent about illegal activity. It shifted the burden back to Captain Williams to demonstrate that the City's proffered non-retaliatory reason for discharging him was pretextual, and that retaliation was the sole reason for his discharge. See Wilson, 104 S.W.3d at 54.
Once the employer proffers a non-retaliatory reason for the employee's discharge, "the employee must have a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate that the employer's proffered reasons are pretextual and that unlawful [retaliation] was the true reason for the challenged employment action." Wilson, 104 S.W.3d at 50 (citing Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089; Versa v. Policy Studies, Inc., 45 S.W.3d 575, 580 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000)). At this stage in the analysis, "the McDonnell/Douglas burden-shifting framework falls away and the trier of fact [is] left to determine the ultimate question of [retaliation]." Gibson v. City of Louisville, 336 F.3d 511, 513 (6th Cir.2003). "[I]n other words, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has established that it is more likely than not that the employer's proffered reason `is mere pretext and thus a coverup' for the employer's true retaliatory motive." Barry v. U.S. Capitol Guide Bd., 636 F.Supp.2d 95, 102-03 (U.S.D.C. 2009) (quoting Vickers v. Powell, 493 F.3d 186, 195 (D.C.Cir.2007) (internal quotations omitted)). In evaluating the evidence, the trial court must look at all of the evidence, including evidence submitted by the plaintiff to establish his prima facie case. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255 n.10, 101 S.Ct. 1089. Circumstantial evidence is also considered. See Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep't of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1331 (10th Cir.1999). The trial court must take into account any evidence that exposes the "weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions" in the City's proffered explanation. Wilson, 104 S.W.3d at 50-51 (quoting Garrett v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 305 F.3d 1210, 1217 (10th Cir.2002)). After doing so, it must decide whether the evidence as a whole gives rise to an inference that the employer's proffered non-retaliatory reason is pretextual. See Phillips v. Anderson Cnty., No. E2009-01883-COA-R3-CV,
Versa, 45 S.W.3d at 581 (quoting In re Lewis, 845 F.2d 624, 633 (6th Cir.1988)). In short, the plaintiff must show that the employer lied about the reason it gave for terminating the plaintiff's employment, in order to mask its true retaliatory motive. Id. at 583.
Pretext is typically shown in one of three ways: (1) by establishing that the employer's proffered reasons have no basis in fact, (2) by establishing that the proffered reasons did not actually motivate the discharge, or (3) by establishing that they were insufficient to motivate the discharge. See Wilson, 104 S.W.3d at 51; Versa, 45 S.W.3d at 581. The first is accomplished by showing that the proffered reason is based on facts that are not true; this calls into question the reasonableness of the employer's decision to discharge. Regarding the second Versa method of establishing pretext — showing that the proffered non-retaliatory reason did not actually motivate the discharge — a plaintiff may either produce evidence that the adverse employment decision was more likely motivated by retaliation or "show that the employer's explanation is not credible." Versa, 45 S.W.3d at 581 (citing Kline v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 128 F.3d 337, 342-43 (6th Cir.1997)). Lastly, to show that the proffered reason is insufficient to motivate the discharge, the employee must produce evidence that other employees who engaged in substantially the same non-protected conduct were not fired. Id.
We now turn to the trial court's findings in this case. The trial court's written order sets forth only its ultimate conclusion; it contains no underlying factual findings on pretext or any other issue, and it does not incorporate the oral ruling. "It is well-settled that a trial court speaks through its written orders — not through oral statements contained in the transcripts — and that the appellate court reviews the trial court's written orders."
The trial court's conclusion, however, rested on a faulty premise, a fundamental misunderstanding of the entirety of the protected conduct at issue. As noted above, the trial court erroneously held that Captain Williams had failed to carry his burden under the "failure to remain silent" prong of the TPPA because it did not realize that the City's proffered chain-of-command justification for discharging Williams was essentially an admission of retaliatory motive. This left the trial court unable to sort out which of the City's stated reasons were retaliatory and which were non-retaliatory and, consequently, unable to properly evaluate the evidence on pretext.
The City argues vigorously that the trial court's ultimate holding was based on implicit determinations of the witnesses' credibility, and emphasizes that assessing the witnesses' credibility is a function that belongs uniquely to the trial judge who was present and saw them testify. We agree that we are required to defer to the trial court's credibility findings, including those that are implicit in its holdings. Richards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 70 S.W.3d 729, 733-34 (Tenn. 2002); Wells v. Tenn. Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779, 783-84 (Tenn.1999); Seals v. England/Corsair Upholstery Mfg. Co., Inc., 984 S.W.2d 912, 915 (Tenn.1999). However, in the unique posture of this case, any findings implicit in the trial court's ultimate conclusion are for naught because they were based on a misguided premise. Because the premise for the trial court's decision was erroneous, we cannot know whether the trial court would have made the same underlying findings had it realized that one of the City's claimed non-retaliatory reasons was in reality an admission of retaliatory motive.
The starting point for our review is, of course, Chief Sumerour's testimony. His testimony began with the assertion that he discharged Captain Williams, at least in part, because Captain Williams violated the chain of command by speaking to Mayor Bishop about the Chief's ticket fixing. We now recognize this as an admission by the City of retaliatory motive. The Chief acknowledged that he threatened — in writing — to fire Captain Williams if he "went around" the chain of command again. Captain Williams spoke to the Mayor a second time, which prompted the Mayor to order Chief Sumerour to turn in the stepson's traffic tickets as citations or risk termination of the Chief's employment. A short time later, Chief Sumerour discharged Captain Williams, as threatened.
The significance of the City's admission that it fired Captain Williams for engaging in protected conduct cannot be overstated. It constitutes direct evidence of retaliatory motive, that is, proof of motive on its face, without the need for inference. See Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 227 S.W.3d 595, 609 (Tenn.Ct.App.2007); Wilson, 104 S.W.3d at 49. Such direct proof of subjective motive is "`usually impossible to obtain' in the employment-law context when the fact in issue is the employer's motivation for a particular employment decision." Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987, 1000 n.8 (10th Cir.2011) (quoting Ostrowski v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Cos., 968 F.2d 171, 181 (2d Cir.1992); Tyler v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 958 F.2d 1176, 1185 (2d Cir.1992)); see also U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983) ("There will seldom be `eyewitness' testimony as to the employer's mental processes."); Guy, 79 S.W.3d at 534 ("Where ... the claim is one alleging retaliatory discharge and the essential factor to be determined is the employer's motivation, direct evidence of that motivation is rarely within the plaintiff's possession."). "Direct evidence of discrimination consists of evidence of an employer's conduct or statements which, if believed, requires a conclusion that unlawful discrimination was a substantial motivating factor for the employer's actions." Wilson, 104 S.W.3d at 49 (footnote omitted).
In addition to this direct evidence, the record contains several types of circumstantial evidence that retaliation was the sole reason behind Captain Williams' discharge. First, prior to the ticket-fixing dispute, Captain Williams and Chief Sumerour were friends as well as colleagues; afterward, the tensions between Chief Sumerour and Captain Williams were so high that Captain Williams told the Mayor he felt Chief Sumerour was trying to fire him. Chief Sumerour's own accounts of the events, in both his written statements and his trial testimony, fairly bristle with hostility toward Captain Williams.
Second, prior to the ticket-fixing incident, Captain Williams was the Chief's second in command and had a pristine work record; Chief Sumerour had never before disciplined Captain Williams. Within a short period of time after the ticket-fixing
Third, Chief Sumerour approached each police officer in the Department and asked for a written statement on any conversations with Captain Williams about the ticket fixing. The trial court in fact observed that the ticket-fixing dispute "began [Chief Sumerour's] investigation" of Captain Williams. Chief Sumerour's active solicitation of information about Captain Williams from the other officers is further evidence of the Chief's "heightened scrutiny" of the Captain, and indicates an effort by the Chief to obtain "ammunition" against him.
Fourth, Chief Sumerour discharged Captain Williams less than three weeks after the ticket-fixing incident. The close temporal proximity between Captain Williams' protected conduct and the discharge is also probative of a causal connection between the protected conduct and the discharge. See Sykes, 343 S.W.3d at 29 (indicating that "temporal proximity" is circumstantial evidence of causation); Allen, 240 S.W.3d at 823 (indicating that two weeks to two months between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action constituted "a close temporal proximity").
Against this backdrop, we consider the evidence supporting the City's claim that Chief Sumerour had a legitimate non-retaliatory motive for discharging Captain Williams. Officer Sullivan's statement indicated that Captain Williams talked about what might happen in the event Chief Sumerour were discharged over the ticket fixing, but Captain Williams hoped it would not come to that. Officer Sturgill claimed in his statement that Captain Williams made harsh remarks about Chief Sumerour concerning the ticket fixing, that he had no respect for the Chief, and that he had advised the Mayor to fire the Chief because of the illegal activity. The Mayor allegedly repeated to Chief Sumerour similar harsh comments allegedly made by Captain Williams. Chief Sumerour stated
The only evidence of untoward comments by Captain Williams unrelated to the Chief's ticket fixing is contained in Officer Sturgill's statement. Officer Sturgill asserted that Captain Williams purportedly told Officer Sturgill that Chief Sumerour "always" wanted to fire Officer Sturgill, but Captain Williams stood up for Officer Sturgill. Captain Williams denied the statements Officer Sturgill attributed to him, but for purposes of this appeal, we assume that Chief Sumerour actually believed Officer Sturgill's account.
As noted above, we look at the entirety of the evidence to determine whether it preponderates for or against a finding of pretext. See Newcomb, 222 S.W.3d at 390. The record contains powerful evidence to support a finding that Captain Williams' discharge was motivated by retaliation for his act of speaking with the Mayor about the Chief's illegal activity. Chief Sumerour's admissions, his open hostility toward Captain Williams, the heightened scrutiny and sudden increase in discipline of Captain Williams, the close temporal proximity between the protected conduct and the discharge, and the fact that most of the allegedly non-retaliatory reasons are closely related to the protected conduct all weigh heavily in favor of a finding of retaliatory motive. Juxtaposed against this overwhelming evidence of retaliatory motive, the City's evidence of a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the discharge looks flimsy indeed. Considering the aggregate weight of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the evidence clearly preponderates in favor of a finding that the City's proffered non-retaliatory reasons for discharging Captain Williams are pretextual, and that the sole reason for Captain Williams' discharge was retaliation for his refusal to participate in and remain silent about the Chief's illegal activities. See Versa, 45 S.W.3d at 581 (noting that pretext can be shown by producing evidence that the discharge "was more likely motivated by discrimination" or that the proffered non-retaliatory reason "is not credible").
Accordingly, we hold that the evidence in the record as a whole preponderates in favor of a finding that Captain Williams was terminated solely in retaliation for refusing to participate in Chief Sumerour's ticket fixing and for refusing to remain silent about it. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause to the trial court to enter a judgment on the merits in favor of Captain Williams, to conduct further proceedings on damages, and for any other proceedings that the trial court deems appropriate, consistent with this opinion.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs on appeal are to be taxed to the City of
