Anthony Parker v. ABC Technologies, Inc.

02/23/2021

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs November 2, 2020

ANTHONY PARKER v. ABC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ET AL.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumner County

No. 83CC1-2019-CV-942 Joe Thompson, Judge

___________________________________

No. M2020-00675-COA-R3-CV

___________________________________

A discharged employee sued his former employer and two managers for (1) retaliatory

discharge under the Tennessee Public Protection Act, (2) common law retaliatory

discharge, (3) negligent retention, and (4) breach of contract. The trial court dismissed the

employee’s claims pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6). After our

independent examination of the pleadings, we conclude that the employee failed to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed;

Case Remanded

KRISTI M. DAVIS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR.,

P.J., M.S., and ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., joined.

Anthony Parker, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Timothy K. Garrett and L. Lymari Cromwell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, ABC

Technologies Inc., Sara Shield, and James Dash.

OPINION

Background

On October 17, 2019, Anthony Parker (“Parker”), proceeding pro se, filed a

complaint against ABC Technologies, Inc. (“ABC”), Sara Shield (“Shield”), and James

Dash (“Dash”) (together, “Defendants”) in the Circuit Court for Sumner County (the “trial

court”). Parker asserted four separate causes of action: wrongful termination under the

Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”); common law retaliatory discharge; negligent

retention of managers; and breach of contract. He did not attach to the complaint his

alleged contract with ABC. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 10.03 (2020) (providing that, subject to

certain enumerated exceptions, “[w]henever a claim is founded upon a written instrument

other than a policy of insurance, a copy of such instrument or the pertinent parts thereof

shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit”). The complaint contains the following

factual allegations relevant to Parker’s claims, which we reproduce verbatim:

10. In 2018[,] Sara Shield HR Manager wrongfully terminated an

employee with a disability.

11. In 2019[,] James Dash, 3rd shift General Manager accused of

inappropriately touching female hourly associates.

....

13. On August 12, 2019, Anthony Parker signed employment contract as

2nd shift Supervisor.

....

16. Defendants breached the employment contract by changing terms.

17. On August 28, 2018, [sic] while on 3rd shift, James Dash General

Manager became threatening and intimidating by saying Phillip the

forklift driver does not have to follow my instructions. Phillip was

asked by an associate and team leader to bring needed material to

press 12 but never did.

....

19. About September 11, 2019, the shipping Team leader found empty

beer can after start of shift. She brought it to my attention whereas

Plaintiff took picture and showed upper management the beer can. Ty

Koelker and Sara Shield were dismissive of beer can found at entrance

door by time clock near cafeteria.

20. About September 12, 2019, Ty Koelker, the Operation Manager,

covering for James Dash during his vacation on 3rd shift. Ty Koelker

used vulgar cursing abusive language threatening associates and

Plaintiff. He became irritated by GP12 associates preventing door

panels from being shipped out on trucks.

....

-2-

22. On September 18, 2019[,] Sara Shield HR Manager and James Dash

General manager demanded I sign a job performance plan/

STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING.

23. On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff refused to sign job performance

plan/Statement of Understanding.

24. On September 19, 2019, submitted complaint on ABC Technologies

Inc. ethics hotline reporting alcohol abuse, illegal drugs and hostile

work environment, (#447359004501).

25. Reported 3rd shift maintenance man was under the influence of opioids

while management was aware.

....

28. On September 25, 2019, Sara Shield said my job was being terminated

because I did not sign the Job Performance Plan/STATEMENT OF

UNDERSTANDING.

29. ABC Technologies Inc. in Gallatin, Tennessee retaliated by

terminating my employment for reporting[] drug and alcohol abuse on

3rd shift creating a hostile work environment managed by James Dash,

General Manager.

30. On September 25, 2019, offered severance pay of $5,000.00; the

amount was less money than one-month severance in original

employment contract.

31. The original employment contract offered Plaintiff 1 months’

severance of $65,000. That equals $5,416.66. Not $5,000 offered in

severance agreement Plaintiff rescinded.1

....

39. Plaintiff alleges refusal to sign statement of understanding was the but

for factor in Defendant’s decision to terminate employment.

....

1

We construe this allegation to mean that Parker was entitled to one-month’s salary or $5,416.66

as severance pay (that is, $65,000.00 divided by twelve months).

-3-

46. Plaintiff made formal complaint on ABC Technologies Inc. ethics hot

line was the but for factor in James Dash and Sara Shield’s decision

to terminate employment.

....

52. Plaintiff alleges Defendant knew James Dash created a hostile work

environment and was accused of inappropriate touching of female

associate but was not terminated[.]

53. Plaintiff alleges Sara Shield wrongfully terminated an employee with

a disability [and] has a pattern of terminating employment.

....

55. Defendant ABC Technologies Inc. did not terminate James Dash or

Sara Shield employment after being aware of violating company

ethics, moral and violating company policies.

....

72. Plaintiff alleges refusal to sign statement of understanding was the but

for factor in Defendant’s decision to terminate employment.

73. On September 25, 2019, Defendant changed terms of employment

contract by offering less money as severance than in original

employment contract signed on August 12, 2019[.]

Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss Parker’s complaint in its entirety pursuant

to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6).2 Defendants argued that the TPPA and

common law retaliatory discharge claims against Shield and Dash should be dismissed

because these types of claims do not contemplate individual liability for co-employees.

Defendants also argued that the negligent retention and breach of contract claims against

Shield and Dash should be dismissed because Shield and Dash could not negligently retain

themselves and Parker did not allege a contract between himself and Shield and Dash.

As to ABC, Defendants alleged that the TPPA, common law retaliatory discharge,

and negligent retention claims should be dismissed because Parker failed to allege facts

supporting one or more elements of these claims. They also alleged that the breach of

2

Rule 12.02(6) permits defendants to file a motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim for “failure to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6).

-4-

contract claim should be dismissed because Parker did not plead specific facts concerning

the existence of a legally binding contract. However, Defendants also attached to their

motion “the only alleged employment contract of which Defendant ABC is aware.” They

argued that under that contract, Parker is guaranteed severance only if “discharged without

cause,” and pointed to Parker’s allegations that he was terminated for refusing to sign a job

performance plan. Section 1 of the employment contract states, in relevant part:

[T]he Employer may terminate this Agreement and the employment of the

Employee at any time:

(a) during the probationary period of three (3) months from the

Commencement Date without cause and without prior notice or

payment in lieu of notice;

(b) without cause upon payment of One (1) month’ [sic] Basic Salary as

severance, and contingent upon the execution of a release and the

other conditions contained in Section 14; or

(c) with cause (determined reasonably and in good faith by the

Employer),without prior notice or payment of severance.

Section 4 of the contract states: “It is hereby acknowledged and agreed that the employment

relationship created hereby is intended to be an ‘employment at will’ relationship and that

either party may terminate the employment relationship with or without cause at any time

subject to the provisions of Section 1.” As to compensation, Section 7 of the contract

provides that “Basic Salary” of “the Employee . . . shall be . . . (US$65,000), per annum,

gross.” Parker filed a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, primarily restating the

allegations in his complaint but also attaching a copy of the same unsigned employment

contract Defendants had filed with their motion.

On January 24, 2020, the trial court entered an order granting Defendants’ motion

to dismiss the entire case. On April 28, 2020, the trial court denied Parker’s motion to alter

or amend its judgment,3 noting that “in addition to having to accept the well-pled factual

allegations in [Parker]’s complaint, the Court also must determine whether those facts are

sufficient to assert a legal cause of action. In other words, the Court must determine if

those facts state a claim under Tennessee law for which relief can be granted. In that legal

analysis, the Court determined that [Parker]’s complaint fails.” Parker timely appealed the

dismissal of his claims.

3

Parker had filed this motion on January 16, 2020, three days after the trial court heard Defendant’s

motion to dismiss, but before the trial court entered its January 24, 2020 order granting Defendant’s motion.

Parker’s motion was heard on April 20, 2020, after continuances resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

-5-

Issues Presented

Parker asks this Court to review whether the trial court erred in granting ABC’s

motion to dismiss his claims for (1) violation of the TPPA; (2) common law retaliation; (3)

negligent retention; and (4) breach of contract.

Standard of Review

The standard of review applicable to a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss

based on Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure is de novo, with no

presumption of correctness. Phillips v. Montgomery Cnty., 442 S.W.3d 233, 237 (Tenn.

2014). A Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss challenges only the legal sufficiency of the

complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof or evidence. Webb v. Nashville Area

Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011). Such motion “‘admits the

truth of all of the relevant and material allegations contained in the complaint, but . . .

asserts that the allegations fail to establish a cause of action.’” Brown v. Tenn. Title Loans,

Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem.

Co., 172 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tenn. 2005)). Thus, the trial court’s ruling must be based on

its examination of the pleadings alone. Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 426. Moreover, the trial court

“must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and

giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232

S.W.3d 28, 31–32 (Tenn. 2007). However, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss,

“[t]he facts pleaded, and the inferences reasonably drawn from these facts, must raise the

pleader’s right to relief beyond the speculative level.” Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare–

Memphis Hosps., 325 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Tenn. 2010). “[C]ourts are not required to accept

as true assertions that are merely legal arguments or ‘legal conclusions’ couched as

facts.” Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 427 (citation omitted).

Analysis

Parker broadly asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing the claims in his

complaint because the trial court held him to a higher standard for pleading than that

required under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 8.05.4 We review independently the

4

Rule 8.05 provides:

(1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct. No technical forms of

pleading or motions are required. Every pleading stating a claim or defense relying upon

the violation of a statute shall, in a separate count or paragraph, either specifically refer to

the statute or state all of the facts necessary to constitute such breach so that the other party

can be duly apprised of the statutory violation charged. The substance of any ordinance or

regulation relied upon for claim or defense shall be stated in a separate count or paragraph

and the ordinance or regulation shall be clearly identified. The manner in which violation

-6-

allegations in Parker’s complaint to determine if they sufficiently state claims upon which

relief can be granted. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6).

I. Retaliatory Discharge under the TPPA

Under the TPPA, “[n]o employee shall be discharged or terminated solely for

refusing to participate in, or for refusing to remain silent about, illegal activities.” Tenn.

Code Ann. § 50-1-304(b) (2014) (emphasis added). To state a claim for relief under the

Act, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant; (2) the

plaintiff refused to participate in or remain silent about illegal activity; (3) the defendant

employer terminated the plaintiff’s employment; and (4) the sole reason for termination

was plaintiff’s refusal to participate in or remain silent about the illegal activity. Davis v.

Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr., No. M2019-01860-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 4516094, at *3

(Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2020), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 12, 2020) (citing Webb, 346

S.W.3d at 437). Our Supreme Court has emphasized that this statutory cause of action

“requires an employee to show that his or her refusal to remain silent was the sole reason

for the discharge.” Haynes v. Formac Stables, Inc., 463 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Tenn. 2015) (citing

Guy v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 79 S.W.3d 528, 537 (Tenn. 2002)). The TPPA defines

illegal activities as “activities that are in violation of the criminal or civil code of this state

or the United States or any regulation intended to protect the public health, safety or

welfare.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304(a)(3). At all stages of a case, the plaintiff has the

burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge. Id. § 50-1-304(f).

In his complaint, Parker alleged that on August 28, 2019, Dash “became threatening

an intimidating by saying . . . the forklift driver does not have to follow my instructions.”

Parker also alleged that on September 11, 2019, he “showed upper management” a picture

of an empty beer can another employee found near ABC’s cafeteria, and that the next day,

another employee “used vulgar cursing abusive language threatening associates and

[him].” Parker stated that on September 19, 2019, he submitted a complaint via ABC’s

ethics hotline to report “alcohol abuse, illegal drugs[,] and a hostile environment.” He then

asserted that ABC terminated his employment because he reported “drug and alcohol abuse

on 3rd shift creating a hostile work environment.” However, Parker also alleged in his

complaint that on September 18, 2019, he “refused to sign job performance plan/Statement

of any statute, ordinance or regulation is claimed shall be set forth.

(2) A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or

hypothetically. When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them

if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the

insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. A party may also state as many

separate claims or defenses as he or she has, regardless of consistency.

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.05 (2020) (emphasis added).

-7-

of Understanding,” and that, a week later, Shield told him that he “was being terminated

because [he] did not sign the Job Performance Plan/STATEMENT OF

UNDERSTANDING.”

As a preliminary matter, Parker’s TPPA claim fails as to Shield and Dash because

he did not allege he was employed by either one of these defendants. See Davis, 2020 WL

4516094, at *3. Turning to ABC, although Parker alleged circumstances that might reflect

poorly on the management of a business or constitute an unpleasant work environment, he

did not allege that any of the activities he experienced or reported to his superiors violated

a civil or criminal code or regulation, as required by the Act. See Tidwell v. Holston

Methodist Fed. Credit Union, No. E2019-01111-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 3481537, at *3

(Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2020) (stating that TPPA claims fail as a matter of law where

plaintiffs do not identify any provisions of the Tennessee or United States Code or any

regulations intended to protect the public health or safety); Konvalinka v. Fuller, No.

E2017-00493-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 2323831, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2019)

(concluding that defendant employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because

former employee failed to identify a specific statutory or regulatory provision that he

believed had been violated or would be violated). Moreover, Parker alleged that he refused

to sign a job performance plan/statement of understanding presented to him by ABC and

that Shield told him such refusal was the reason for his termination. Indeed, he alleged that

his “refusal to sign [the] statement of understanding was the but[-]for factor in [ABC]’s

decision to terminate [his] employment.” Compl. ¶¶ 39, 65, 72. Taking Parker’s

allegations as true, as we must, we are constrained to find that the sole reason for his

termination was not an activity protected by the TPPA. We conclude that he failed to state

a claim under the Act.

II. Common Law Retaliatory Discharge5

Having determined that Parker did not state a claim for relief under the TPPA, we

now consider whether the allegations in his complaint state a claim for common law

retaliatory discharge. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304(g) (providing that the statute

“abrogates and supersedes the common law with respect to any claim that could have been

brought under this section”).

We first note that Parker asserted this second claim purportedly under Tennessee

5

The complaint purports to state a separate cause of action for “Violation of Tennessee’s Policy

and Implied Contract Employment at will Exceptions.” Parker essentially alleges that his termination

violated “Tennessee’s exception to employment at will policy.” Although the trial court did not rule

expressly on this issue, pursuant to our de novo review of the complaint and our analysis below, we

conclude that Parker’s allegations pertinent to this “claim” are properly subsumed within his common law

retaliatory discharge claim.

-8-

Code Annotated section 50-1-801.6 We construe this claim as one for retaliatory discharge

under common law. See Lawrence v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., No.

E2016-02169-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 4476858, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2017) (citing

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50–1–801 (2017)) (“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.”). To state a claim for common law retaliatory discharge,

a plaintiff must allege that (1) an employment-at-will relationship existed; (2) he was

discharged; (3) the reason for his discharge was that he attempted to exercise a statutory or

constitutional right, or for any other reason which violates a clear public policy evidenced

by an unambiguous constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision; and (4) a substantial

factor in the employer’s decision to discharge him was his exercise of protected rights or

his compliance with clear public policy. Richmond v. Vanguard Healthcare Servs., LLC,

No. M2014-02461-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 373279, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2016)

(citing Collins v. AmSouth Bank, 241 S.W.3d 879, 884 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)). Notably,

unlike a TPPA claim, a retaliatory discharge claim under common law requires the plaintiff

to show that the alleged protected action was a substantial factor, not the sole factor leading

to termination. Id. (citing Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96, 111 (Tenn. 2015)).

This cause of action aims to balance ‘“the employment-at-will doctrine and rights

granted employees under well-defined public policy.”’ Konvalinka, 2019 WL 2323831, at

*4 (citation omitted). However, this “public policy exception” to the employment-at-will

doctrine “must be narrowly construed to prevent it from ‘consum[ing] or eliminat[ing] the

general rule.”’ Id. (quoting Chism v. Mid-S. Milling Co., 762 S.W.2d 552, 556 (Tenn.

1988)). Thus, a common law retaliatory discharge claim is available only “‘in limited

circumstances, [where] certain well-defined, unambiguous principles of public policy

confer upon employees implicit rights which must not be circumscribed or chilled by the

potential of termination.”’ Quinn-Glover v. Reg’l Med. Ctr. at Memphis, No. W2011-

00100-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 120209, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2012) (internal

quotation marks omitted) (citing Franklin v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc., 210 S.W.3d 521, 530–

31 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citation omitted)).

Like his TPPA claim, Parker’s common law retaliatory discharge claim against

Shield and Dash fails because he did not allege he was employed by either one. See

Richmond, 2016 WL 373279, at *9.

Concerning ABC, Parker relied on the same set of facts he alleged to support his

TPPA claim. He did not allege, however, that his termination resulted from exercising any

specific constitutional or statutory right. Nor did he point to a constitutional, statutory, or

regulatory provision to show that his termination violated a clear public policy. These

6

Section 50-1-801 “does not in itself provide a cause of action.” Swanson v. Summit Med. Grp.,

PLLC, No. 3:14–CV–39–TAV–HBG, 2014 WL 2208948, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. May 28, 2014).

-9-

omissions are fatal to Parker’s claim. Quinn-Glover, 2012 WL 120209, at *10 (citing

Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., 320 S.W.3d 777, 787 (Tenn. 2010)) (finding that a

complaint’s failure to cite a specific public policy as “embodied in the law” did not

sufficiently allege a claim of common law retaliatory discharge). In other words, Parker’s

claim cannot survive “simply by claiming that he believed his employer’s actions were

‘wrong’ or against ‘public policy.’” Konvalinka, 2019 WL 2323831, at *5 (quoting

Sanders v. Henry Cnty., No. W2008-01832-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 1065916, at *8 (Tenn.

Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2009)). Because Parker failed to identify any constitutional, statutory,

or regulatory provision implicated by ABC’s conduct, his claim fails. Moreover, although

Parker alleged that his “formal complaint on [ABC’s] ethics hot line was the but[-]for

factor” in his termination, he also asserted multiple times that his refusal to sign the job

performance plan was also the “but[-]for” factor for his termination. See Compl. ¶¶ 39,

65, 72. In light of Parker’s conflicting allegations, we conclude that he also failed to allege

that his exercise of a protected right was a substantial factor for his termination. Therefore,

Parker’s complaint did not state a common law claim for retaliatory discharge.

III. Negligent Retention

Parker alleges that ABC negligently retained its managers Dash and Shield. To

establish a claim for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of an employee, a plaintiff

must establish—in addition to the elements of a negligence claim7—that the employer had

knowledge of the employee’s unfitness for the job. Brown v. Mapco Exp., Inc., 393 S.W.3d

696, 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Doe v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis,

306 S.W.3d 712, 717 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008)). With respect to the employee’s unfitness,

the plaintiff has the burden of showing that “the employee or independent contractor was

not qualified to perform the work for which he was hired.” Davis v. Covenant Presbyterian

Church, No. M2013-02273-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 2895898, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. June

23, 2014) (citing Marshalls of Nashville, Tenn., Inc. v. Harding Mall Assoc., Ltd., 799

S.W.2d 239, 243 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990)); see also Brown, 393 S.W.3d at 703 (affirming

summary judgment in favor of employer on a negligent retention claim where plaintiff did

not make factual allegations showing that employee in question was “unfit for her job”).

Parker’s allegations are clearly insufficient to state a claim for negligent retention

against Shield and Dash. As employees of ABC, Shield and Dash could not also assume

the role of employer and “retain” their own employment.

With respect to ABC, Parker averred that Shield and Dash worked as the

7

“It is well-settled that a plaintiff in a negligence action must prove the essential elements of duty,

breach of duty, causation in fact, proximate causation, and damages.” Watson v. Payne, 359 S.W.3d 166,

168 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Kilpatrick v. Bryant, 868 S.W.2d 594, 598 (Tenn. 1993)).

- 10 -

corporation’s HR Manager and 3rd shift General Manager, respectively. He alleged that

ABC knew Dash “created a hostile work environment and was accused of inappropriate

touching of female associates.” The only factual allegation in support of the conclusory

allegation that Dash created a hostile work environment is that Dash was “threatening and

intimidating” by saying “Phillip the forklift driver does not have to follow my instructions.”

In the absence of any other factual allegations—and assuming that ABC was aware of

Dash’s statement about the forklift driver—we have little trouble concluding that Parker

failed to allege that Dash was not fit for his job as 3rd shift General Manager. Parker’s

allegation that Dash was accused of inappropriate touching of female associates does not

help his claim. Taking the allegation as true, there is no allegation in the complaint

indicating whether the accusations were presented to ABC, whether the accusations were

proven true, or anything else that would show that the accusations made Dash unfit for his

job. Concerning Shield, Parker alleged that she “wrongfully terminated an employee with

a disability [and] has a pattern of terminating employment.” Again, the allegation that

Shield “wrongfully” terminated an employee is conclusory and unsupported by any factual

allegations elsewhere in the complaint. Further, without more, the allegation that Shield

had a “pattern of terminating employment” would seem to result squarely from her

responsibilities as HR Manager. We conclude that Parker failed to allege that Shield or

Dash were unfit for their jobs at ABC, let alone that ABC had knowledge that they were

unfit to perform their jobs. As a result, Parker’s complaint failed to “aver sufficient facts”

to support his negligent retention claim. See Heflin v. Iberiabank Corp., 571 S.W.3d 727,

737 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (affirming grant of motion to dismiss a negligent hiring claim

where plaintiff did not allege employee “had a criminal history or record of misbehavior

that would have disqualified her from being hired”).

IV. Breach of Contract

We first conclude that Parker failed to state a claim for breach of contract against

Shield or Dash because he did not allege entering into any contracts with either employee.

With respect to his former employer, Parker alleged that ABC breached the terms

of his employment contract by offering him “severance pay of $5,000.00,” which was “less

money than [the] one-month severance” contemplated in the “original employment

contract [he] signed on August 12, 2019.” To recover under a breach of contract theory, a

plaintiff must show (1) the existence of an enforceable contract, (2) nonperformance

amounting to a breach of the contract, and (3) damages caused by the breach of the contract.

ARC LifeMed, Inc., v. AMC–Tennessee, Inc., 183 S.W.3d 1, 26 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)

(citing Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Charles Town Assoc.’s Ltd. Partnership, LPIMC Inc.,

79 F.3d 496, 514 (6th Cir. 1996)). In addition, Rule 10.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil

Procedure provides:

Whenever a claim or defense is founded upon a written instrument other than

- 11 -

a policy of insurance, a copy of such instrument or the pertinent parts thereof

shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit unless the instrument is (1) a

matter of public record in the county in which the action is commenced and

its location in the record is set forth in the pleading; (2) in the possession of

the adverse party and this fact is stated in the pleading; (3) inaccessible to the

pleader or is of such nature that attaching the instrument would be

unnecessary or impracticable and this fact is stated in the pleading, together

with the reason therefor. Every exhibit so attached or referred to under (1)

and (2) shall be a part of the pleading for all purposes.

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 10.03. Thus, under Rule 10.03, the parties are required to attach a copy

of written instruments that form the bases for their claims or defenses, absent certain

circumstances. Moreover, a copy of a written instrument attached to a pleading pursuant

to the provisions of the rule becomes a part of the pleading itself.

In its motion to dismiss, ABC argued that Parker “references an employment

contract in his Complaint, but does not attach a copy of such alleged contract . . . [and his]

claim is, therefore, deficient and lacks sufficient specificity to allege that a valid and

enforceable contract exists.” However, ABC attached to its motion a copy of a purported

employment contract with Parker and argued that Parker’s claim fails because under that

contract, he was not entitled to severance pay. Taking as true Parker’s allegation that he

signed an employment contract with ABC on August 12, 2019, and given that (1) part of

ABC’s defense is based on the contents of the contract attached to its motion and (2) Parker

himself filed a copy of the very same unsigned contract with his response to ABC’s motion

to dismiss, we will review the contract’s provisions as a part of the pleadings. See Tenn.

R. Civ. P. 10.03.

Section 1, subsection (a), of the contract submitted by the parties provides that ABC

may terminate “this Agreement and the employment of the Employee at any time . . . during

the probationary period of three (3) months from the Commencement Date without cause

and without prior notice or payment in lieu of notice.” (Emphasis added). We find this

provision unambiguous and, thus, dispositive of Parker’s breach of contract claim. See

Ralph v. Pipkin, 183 S.W.3d 362, 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citation omitted) (“As long

as the terms of a contract are unambiguous, the contract will be enforced as written.”). In

his complaint, Parker avers that he is entitled to severance pay as contemplated under the

employment contract he signed in August 2019. He alleges that he was discharged on

September 25, 2019, which was well within his three-month probationary period. As the

trial court noted, “the employment contract does not guarantee [Parker] any severance if

he is terminated during his probationary period.” Consequently, Parker’s claim for breach

of contract fails, as a matter of law, because, under the employment contract, ABC had the

right to terminate his employment without cause and without payment of severance in any

amount.

- 12 -

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the Sumner County Circuit Court dismissing Parker’s

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Costs of this appeal

are taxed to the appellant, Anthony Parker, for which execution may issue if necessary.

_________________________________

KRISTI M. DAVIS, JUDGE

- 13 -