Tennessee Supreme Court

Pam Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc.

July 21, 20112011 Tenn. LEXIS 623

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court declined to adopt the federal Twombly/Iqbal 'plausibility' pleading standard, holding that Rule 12.02(6) motions to dismiss continue to be governed by Tennessee's longstanding notice-pleading regime, under which dismissal is proper only when it appears the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling her to relief. Applying that standard, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' vacatur of the trial court's dismissal, concluding that Pam Webb's amended complaint sufficiently stated retaliatory-discharge claims under the Tennessee Public Protection Act and Tennessee common law. The Court gave five reasons for rejecting plausibility pleading: its drastic departure from stable notice-pleading principles; its improper merits-weighing at the pleading stage, with implications for the inviolate right of jury trial; the unworkable fact/conclusion dichotomy; its disproportionate impact on discovery-dependent civil-rights and employment-discrimination claims; and the absence of any showing that the federal policy concerns behind Twombly/Iqbal prevail in Tennessee, with any such procedural change reserved to the rule-making process rather than judicial fiat.

Holding

  • Whether Tennessee should abandon its notice-pleading standard and adopt the federal Twombly/Iqbal 'plausibility' standard for ruling on a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss.. No. Tennessee declines to adopt the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility pleading standard and retains its longstanding notice-pleading regime under Rule 8.01: a Rule 12.02(6) motion challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, is resolved on the pleadings alone, requires liberal construction with all factual allegations presumed true and reasonable inferences drawn for the plaintiff, and warrants dismissal only when it appears the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling her to relief.
  • Whether Webb's amended complaint states a cause of action for retaliatory discharge under the Tennessee Public Protection Act and Tennessee common law.. Yes. Construed liberally with factual allegations taken as true and reasonable inferences drawn for the plaintiff, the amended complaint — alleging that Webb complained about and refused to implement, participate in, or remain silent about discriminatory and illegal policies and was fired roughly two months later for purported 'budgetary reasons' she alleges were pretextual — is not subject to dismissal because it is not apparent from its face that she can prove no set of facts entitling her to relief. The complaint also satisfies Rule 8.05(1) by specifically referring to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304 and provides Habitat with sufficient notice of the claims.

Docket M2009-01552-SC-R11-CV

Cited authorities

  • Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6)
  • Rule 12.02(6)
  • Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6)
  • Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6)
  • Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 8.01
  • Rule 8.05(1)
  • Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6)
  • Rule 12.02(6)

Cited by