Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 Session JULIE A. BELLAMY v. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC. and PAUL LUDOVISSIE
Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Wilson County No. 06145 Charles K. Smith, Chancellor

No. M2008-00294-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 30, 2008

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial judge erred by failing to exercise his role as thirteenth juror in denying Appellant's motion for a new trial. In support of her argument, Appellant urges this Court to consider comments the trial judge made in ruling on Appellees' motions for a directed verdict; the Statement of the Evidence, Response, Reply, and Surreply; and Appellees' proposed order, in which the trial judge struck certain language. Appellees, however, contend that this material is either not properly reviewable by this Court or does not bear on the issue of whether the thirteenth juror standard was met. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J.,W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HOLLY M. KIRBY , J., and J. STEVEN STAFFORD , J., joined. Douglas B. Janney, III, Nashville, TN, for Appellant Robert W. Horton, Leslie Goff Sanders, Nashville, TN, for Appellees

OPINION I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Julie Bellamy ("Appellant" or "Ms. Bellamy") was employed by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. ("Appellee" or "Cracker Barrel") as a Restaurant Manager or as a General Manager from June 2003 until March 17, 2006. Paul Ludovissie ("Appellee" or "Mr. Ludovissie") was also employed by Cracker Barrel as a District Manager and had supervisory authority over Ms. Bellamy after her promotion to General Manager. On May 3, 2006, Ms. Bellamy filed an Amended Complaint in the Chancery Court for Wilson County against both Cracker Barrel and Mr. Ludovissie (collectively "Appellees") for damages for gender discrimination, hostile work environment harassment, and retaliation under the Tennessee Human Rights Act,1 the Tennessee Public Protection Act,2 and Tennessee common law. Appellant contended that Ludovissie maintained a hostile and abusive working environment by "inquir[ing] into [Appellant's] personal and private life during work hours, ask[ing] who she was dating, t[elling] her not to date certain individuals, and tr[ying] to exercise control over [her] personal life." Furthermore, Appellant's Amended Complaint alleged that Mr. Ludovissie "treated [her] differently and less favorably than similarly situated male employees because she [was] female[,]" "frequently yelled and cursed at [Appellant] while she was at work[,]" "made belittling and inappropriate statements to [Appellant,]" "threatened [Appellant] and her continued employment[,]" and "knocked over chairs, struck objects, and threw objects in [Appellant's] presence and vicinity." Appellant stated that when she reported Mr. Ludovissie's conduct, "[Appellees] retaliated against [her] and took steps to ensure that she would be fired for reporting Ludovissie's conduct." According to Ms. Bellamy's Amended Complaint, Cracker Barrel stated that her termination was due to "specific reasons related to her job performance[;]"however, "other managerial employees [who had] engaged in the same or worse alleged conduct . . . [had] not been fired." In their Answer, Appellees denied that Appellant was entitled to the relief requested. Instead, Appellees maintained that it was only after Cracker Barrel suspended Appellant pending an investigation "into numerous allegations of wrongdoing at the Cracker Barrel restaurant under her management, including sexual harassment and drug dealing[,]" that Appellant complained about Mr. Ludovissie's conduct. Appellees further noted that Cracker Barrel "conducted a thorough investigation into [Appellant's] complaints" and that none of the witnesses identified by Appellant corroborated her allegations. Appellant voluntarily dismissed her gender discrimination and hostile work environment claims and a jury trial was held from November 26, 2007 through November 30, 2007 on Appellant's retaliation claim. The jury returned a verdict for the Appellees answering "no" to the following question: "[D]o you find by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff actually and

1 2

Tenn. Code Ann.

Download BellamyJulieAOPN.pdf

Tennessee Law