McLeay v. Huddleston (Summary)

DISCHARGE CLAIMS/CIVIL RIGHTS/CONTRACT/DEFAMATION

McLeay v. Huddleston, No. M2005-02118-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2006)

A physician assistant (“PA”) sued her former employer for common law and statutory retaliatory discharge, violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, tortious interference with an employment contract, defamation, and negligence after being terminated from her position. The trial court granted all defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The PA appealed.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the PA failed to establish a claim for retaliatory discharge, because her annual evaluation reflected several areas that needed improvement, including properly notifying and utilizing physicians in administering care. Also, she had previously received formal disciplinary warnings, and was terminated for violating hospital protocols and policies. The court held that the PA failed to establish the element that an exclusive causal relationship existed between her alleged refusal to remain silent about illegal activities and her termination by the hospital. With regard to the PA’s common law claims, the court held that she failed to establish that a substantial factor in the employer’s decision to discharge her was her exercise of protected rights or compliance with clear public policy. It also held that the PA failed to establish that the hospital authority or any of the individual defendants implemented any policy or practice which deprived her of her right to due process or equal protection, or acted under color of state law to deprive her of a Constitutional right. With regard to the PA’s defamation claims, the court held that the PA failed to satisfy the “publication” element of such a claim. The court held that nothing in the record established that the hospital authority breached its duty to hire competent employees and to appropriately supervise those employees, and that there was no evidence of a contract with the hospital. Thus, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.