TN Court: Employees May Sue Bosses Without Cause

Well, technically, no, but that's what this will lead to.

In Tennessee, the burden of proof is now on the accused; an employer must somehow show that they did not harass, intimidate, or discriminate.

The ordinary rule, where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, does not apply to 'employers,' which are nonhuman insects unworthy of the civil rights we afford to rapists and pederasts.

Need we note that proving yourself innocent of discriminatory behavior is an incredibly difficult task unless you (probably illegally) record every employer/employee interaction?
I see a lot of out-of-court settlement shakedowns in Tennesee's future.

Hey guys. What's the best way for a small business to avoid getting wrongly sued by a minority, a female, or an older employee?

Why, not hiring them in the first place, of course.

Brilliant, Tennessee Supreme Court. Good job.

UPDATED FROM COMMENTS:

28 In Tennessee, the burden of proof is now on the accused; an employer must somehow show that they did not harass, intimidate, or discriminate.

The linked article does not say this. Businesses are no longer allowed to get an automatic dismissal; they must make their case to a jury. If they want to avoid the trial and get the case thrown out before it is even heard, then yes, they must prove the claims are false.

But, contrary to your assertion, the burden of proof is not on the employer if it does go to a trial. The jury will decide whose case is more credible based on the facts presented at trial.

Posted by: The Republican Party at September 29, 2010 02:12 PM (DsU01)

Excellent point. Color me corrected, and contrite. Look, just ignore this whole post. Sorry.
I'm taking a mulligan, by the way.

This one doesn't count.

UPDATE II FROM COMMENTS:

One of the protections associated with the "Burden of Proof" is that an accuser must present prima facie evidence for a case to go to trial. The thinking is that taking someone to trial without such evidence is a waste of time, and the defendants money and resources. Just going to trial itself is costly. This eliminates that hurdle, making it easier for false claims to settle out of court to avoid the cost of trial. In effect Tenn has at law authorized corporate shakedowns. Every other type of case, the accuser has to meet prima facie outside of trial prior to a trial being allowed. In addition if a case doesn't have prima facie, and it goes to trial the trial judge should overturn the jury settlement, judgment notwithstanding the verdict (If appl to Tenn) , so no good reason exists to take a case to trial without prima facie evidence except to force shakedowns out of court in the form of cost saving settlements.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 29, 2010 02:28 PM (0q2P7)

I still suck for not reading the article thoroughly. I had it for two days and even had a discussion about it with Tom. What a dorkwad move not befitting a professional amateur cob-logger.

*hangs head in shame*

Thanks to Tom M.

posted by Laura. at 01:54 PM

| Access Comments