Mason v. Seaton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Where ... the claim is one alleging retaliatory discharge and the essential factor to be determined is the employer’s motivation, direct evidence of that motivation is rarely within the plaintiffs possession. Consequently, the reviewing court must make a determination of whether the “proffered admissible evidence shows circumstances that would be sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to infer a [retaliatory] motive. It is not the province of the summary judgment court itself to decide what inferences should be drawn.” The evidence of causation must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and all reasonable inferences must be made in that party’s favor. The burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff to prove a causal relationship between the plaintiffs whistleblowing activity and the termination of employment. If the plaintiff is able to demonstrate this causal link, the employer then bears the burden of showing a “legitimate, non-pretextual reason for the employee’s discharge.” Summary judgment should be granted only when the facts and inferences drawn from those facts permit a reasonable person to reach only one conclusion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Conley v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.

2. “Evidence of causation requires more than the facts showing employment, the exercise of rights, and a subsequent discharge. It requires direct evidence or compelling circumstantial evidence. The plaintiffs mere belief or understanding of why he was dismissed is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The Tennessee Supreme Court has rejected the idea that a short length of time between the incident and the dismissal constitutes a prima facie showing of retaliation. While the Co-natser court quoted a treatise stating “proximity in time without evidence of satisfactory job performance does not make a prima facie case,” some evidence of plaintiffs satisfactory job performance is not compelling circumstantial evidence of the causal connection.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walls v. Tennessee CVS Pharmacy, LLC

3. “(1) the plaintiffs status as an employee of the defendant; (2) the plaintiffs refusal to participate in, or to remain silent about, illegal activities; (3) the employer’s discharge of the employee; (4) an exclusive causal relationship between the plaintiffs refusal to participate in or remain silent about illegal activities and the employer’s termination of the employee.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Voss v. Shelter Mutual Insurance