November 15–21, 2025
- Disgruntled Former Employee posts extensively about his Former Employer, which banned him from the premises after an incident of workplace harassment. Employer obtains a temporary restraining order and an injunction under the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act. Employer also petitions for civil contempt during the litigation and secures contempt fines and fees after Employee violates the TRO. Employee (pro se) appeals. Tennessee Court of Appeals: Reversed! “[Employee’s] Facebook posts may be distasteful, offensive, or even vitriolic, but they do not rise to the level of unlawful violence, and they would not cause a reasonable person to undergo significant mental suffering or distress.” There also were not multiple incidents of harassment, though the statute requires “two (2) or more separate, noncontinuous” qualifying acts. And because the trial court’s contempt fine was a punishment, it’s in the nature of criminal contempt, not civil contempt, even though the trial court found Employee to be in contempt based on lesser civil (“preponderance of the evidence”) standards. Thus, everything is reversed. [Editorial note: There was an alternative holding available to support vacatur of everything related to the civil contempt claim, too. See Tennessee Dep’t of Health v. Boyle, No. M2001-01738-COA-R3CV, 2002 WL 31840685, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2002) (holding that the Collateral Bar Rule “does not apply to civil contempt[,]” so “‘civil contempt falls with the order if it turns out to have been erroneously or wrongfully issued.’”).]
- After a hearing, a Shelby County cashier who processes tax payments is terminated because her register had multiple cash shortages. She unsuccessfully contests her termination during the administrative review process and then appeals the trial court’s decision to uphold it. Tennessee Court of Appeals: No error here. The notice that Employee received was adequate, any objections to the civil service hearing are waived because they weren’t asserted there, and the decision to terminate her was not arbitrary, capricious, or clearly unwarranted.
- Public High School Student suffers serious injuries after a classmate (who was not aiming at the injured student) throws a pencil that ricochets and hits Student in the eye, “penetrating her eyeball.” Student sues the School for negligence. After losing on summary judgment due to lack of foreseeability, Student appeals. Tennessee Court of Appeals: Based on the facts involved here, Student’s injuries were not “of the kind that [the Teacher] could have reasonably anticipated happening[,]” so we affirm.
- Abusive Ex-Husband is charge with criminal contempt for violating Ex-Wife’s Order of Protection. He’s convicted at trial and appeals (both Parties are pro se). Tennessee Court of Appeals: Having been convicted of something different than what was charged, Husband was deprived of adequate notice of the charge against him. More than that, “[b]ased on the Trial Court’s own findings, Husband did not violate the Trial Court’s June 6, 2024, order.” So his contempt conviction is reversed. The Order of Protection is affirmed, though; there was sufficient evidence of physical abuse to warrant it.
Firm Updates
Congratulations to Horwitz Law, PLLC client Vanessa Turner! Earlier this year, Ms. Turner won a landmark Tennessee Supreme Court case that changes the game for certain family law (and other) litigants who are victimized by groundless litigation, who are now entitled to recover their legal fees paid when plaintiffs nonsuit. And the cost of her ex-husband’s groundless litigation now has an official price tag—$159,037.58 per order of the trial court on remand—so Ms. Turner will be paid in full.
