Gary M. Gossett v. Tractor Supply Company, Inc.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The Tennessee Supreme Court also questioned whether its change to general summary judgment law left that rule viable, but reserved the issue. The separate holding that an employee fired for refusing to participate in illegal conduct need not report it was not adversely treated in the opinions reviewed.
56 later cases cite Gary M. Gossett v. Tractor Supply Company, Inc.; 56 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Gary M. Gossett v. Tractor Supply Company, Inc.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Superseded by statute
-
The Sixth Circuit applied a new Tennessee Human Rights Act provision and rejected a Gossett-based objection to McDonnell Douglas at summary judgment.
Johnson v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee · Sixth Circuit · filed
Citing Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., 320 S.W.3d 777, 779 (Tenn. 2010), Plaintiffs next argue that the district court applied an incorrect summary judgment standard to their claims brought under the THRA. In Gossett, the Tennessee Supreme Court reasoned that it was inappropriate to use the McDonnell Douglas framework to decide summary judgment motions for claims brought under the THRA, inasmuch as the McDonnell Douglas framework was incompatible with Tennessee’s own summary judgment jurisprudence. However, shortly thereafter, the Tennessee legislature abrogated ... Gossett by statute. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-311(e); see also Bobo v. UPS, 665 F.3d 741, 757 (6th Cir. 2012). Plaintiffs’ argument on this point is therefore moot.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court applied the later statutory McDonnell Douglas framework to a Tennessee Human Rights Act retaliation claim after identifying Gossett’s earlier rule.
Pigott v. Battle Ground Academy · M.D. Tenn. · filed
After some turbulence in state Supreme Court precedent, see Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., 320 S.W.3d 777, 779, 785 (Tenn.2010), the Tennessee legislature codified the federal McDonnell Douglas framework in state law, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-311(e). See Bobo v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 665 F.3d 741, 757-58 (6th Cir.2012). Applying this framework in the same manner as above, genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on Plaintiffs retaliation claim against BGA.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tennessee Court of Appeals applied the later Tennessee Public Protection Act amendment and rejected reliance on Gossett’s summary judgment framework for a statutory claim.
Todd v. Shelby County, Tennessee · Tennessee Court of Appeals · filed
Appellants’ reliance on Gossett is misplaced because Gossett was abrogated by the Legislature’s amendment of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-1-304, to add subsection (g), which provides: ... Accordingly, we conclude that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-1-304(g) and Allen, to the extent it mirrors that statute, are applicable to the instant case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court applied a later statutory McDonnell Douglas framework to a Tennessee Disability Act claim, while noting the claim would also survive under Gossett’s rule.
Dunn v. Chattanooga Publishing Co. · E.D. Tenn. · filed
Although these statutes are still congruent with respect to the substance of Dunn's claims, the Tennessee Supreme Court rejected the McDonnell Douglas framework at summary judgment as “incompatible with Tennessee summary judgment jurisprudence.” Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., Inc., 320 S.W.3d 777 (Tenn.2010). ... Regardless, the Tennessee legislature later adopted the McDonnell Douglas framework by statute in the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-311(e), the “definitions and remedies” of which apply to the TDA, Barnes, 48 S.W.3d at 705. Moreover, because the Court concludes Dunn's claims survive under the McDonnell Douglas framework, her claim would also survive under the more “employee-favorable” Gossett standard.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a 2011 amendment imposed burden shifting on later Tennessee Public Protection Act claims, while leaving this earlier claim under the prior law.
Williams v. City of Burns · Supreme Court of Tennessee · filed
In 2011, the Legislature amended Section 50-1-304 to add a subsection (g), that set forth a statutory burden-shifting framework to be applied to all claims under the TPPA, both for summary judgment motions and for trial. 2011 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 461 (enacted, effective June 10, 2011). The statute was amended in response to this Court's decision in Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., 320 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tenn.2010) (holding that "the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework is inapplicable at the summary judgment stage because it is incompatible with Tennessee summary judgment jurisprudence” set out in Hannan v. Alltel Pub'g Co., 270 S.W.3d 1, 8-9 (Tenn.2008)). In the second appeal in this case, following the trial, the Court of Appeals indicated that the statutory framework found in the amended TPPA applied at trial in this case. Williams, 2013 WL 4068180, at *2. This was error, because Captain Williams’ claim arose well before the 2011 effective date of the amendment. However, because the analytical framework set forth in the amended TPPA is virtually indistinguishable from the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine approach, the Court of Appeals’ error made no real difference in the analysis. We note that Gossett changed only the standard applicable to summary judgment motions, not the analytical framework to be applied at trial. Gossett, 320 S.W.3d at 785.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tennessee Court of Appeals applied a later statute requiring McDonnell Douglas burden shifting to a common law retaliatory discharge claim at summary judgment.
Jerry L. Lawrence v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority · Tennessee Court of Appeals · filed
Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-311 (2017) (emphasis added). In the same bill, the General Assembly also simultaneously added section 50-1-801, providing the same burden of proof for common law retaliatory discharge claims. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-801 (2017). Further, our appellate courts have interpreted that the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Rye essentially and indirectly abrogated the Court’s prior holding in Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., 320 S.W.3d 777 (Tenn. 2010), that had previously discarded the McDonnell Douglas framework for employment discrimination and retaliation causes of action in Tennessee. See Yount, 2016 WL 1056958, at *7 (citing Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 264). As such, we recognize that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis is appropriate for THRA discrimination and common law retaliatory discharge claims, and, therefore, Officers in the instant case were required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and/or retaliation to survive summary judgment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4- 21-31, 50-1-801 (2017); Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 264; Yount, 2016 WL 1056958, at *15-16.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Questioned
-
The Sixth Circuit said a Tennessee amendment appeared to displace Gossett for Human Rights Act claims but left the amendment’s effect for the district court to decide.
Bobo v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · Sixth Circuit · filed
Shortly after oral argument, an amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-311(e) took effect, which appears to abrogate Gossett and Hannan and require the continued application of the McDonnell Douglas framework in THRA cases in accordance with the law prior to Gossett and Hannan. ... We leave for the district court to decide in the first instance how the recent changes in Tennessee law affect Bobo’s THRA discrimination claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tennessee Supreme Court said overruling Hannan called Gossett’s summary judgment holding into question, while expressly leaving Gossett’s continued viability undecided.
Rye v. Women’s Care Center of Memphis, MPLLC · Supreme Court of Tennessee · filed
We recognize that our decision to overrule Hannan calls into question the continued viability of Gossett and Kinsler, in which the majority rejected the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework based on its incompatibility with Hannan. See Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96, 112 n.15 (Tenn. 2015); Sykes, 343 S.W.3d at 26. Nevertheless, neither the continued viability of Gossett and Kinsler, nor the 2011 law amending Tennessee Code Annotated sections 4-21311, 50-1-304, and 50-1-701 as to "causes of action accruing on or after” its effective date of June 10, 2011, are at issue in this interlocutory appeal. See Act of June 10, -2011, ch. 461, 2011 Tenn. Pub. Acts 1227, We decline to address these questions unless and until they are presented in an appropriate case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Gary M. Gossett v. Tractor Supply Company, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace