CompFox AI Summary
Charles K. Newsom, an employee of Textron Aerostructures, Inc. for 34 years, was demoted from Senior Compliance Analyst to Buyer II in 1989 and later terminated in 1992. Newsom sued his employer, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) due to age discrimination in his demotion and retaliatory discharge. He also claimed slander and outrageous conduct. The trial court granted summary judgment to Textron. This appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Newsom's ADEA claims time-barred for not filing with the EEOC within 300 days of his demotion, and his THRA retaliatory discharge claim lacked a causal connection. The court also dismissed the outrageous conduct and defamation claims, stating the conduct was not sufficiently extreme and no specific defamatory statements were proven.
Newsom v. Textron Aerostructures is a workers' compensation case decided in Court of Appeals of Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Charles K. Newsom, an employee of Textron Aerostructures, Inc. for 34 years, was demoted from Senior Compliance Analyst to Buyer II in 1989 and later terminated in 1992. Newsom sued his employer, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) due to age discrimination in his demotion and retaliatory discharge. He also claimed slander and outrageous conduct. The trial court granted summary judgment to Textron. This appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Newsom's ADEA claims time-barred for not filing with the EEOC within 300 days of his demotion, and his THRA retaliatory discharge claim lacked a causal connection. The court also dismissed the outrageous conduct and defamation claims, stating the conduct was not sufficiently extreme and no specific defamatory statements were proven.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.