Gary M. Gossett v. Tractor Supply Company - Concurring and Dissenting

Case Number
M2007-02530-SC-R11-CV

I concur in part II of the majority opinion, holding that the reporting of an illegal activity is not an essential element of an employee’s claim of retaliatory discharge for refusing to participate in an illegal activity, and, as I explain subsequently, I ultimately concur in the judgment denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Nonetheless, I write separately to dissent from the majority’s decision in part I to dispense with the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), at the summary judgment stage in all employment discrimination and retaliation cases.

Authoring Judge
Justice Cornelia A. Clark
Originating Judge
Chancellor Richard H. Dinkins
Case Name
Gary M. Gossett v. Tractor Supply Company - Concurring and Dissenting
Date Filed
Dissent or Concur
This is a dissenting opinion