United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2018-07-23
29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; ADEA age discrimination and retaliation; employer motion for summary judgment granted on the federal (Title VII and ADEA) claims by MD Tenn; plaintiff resigned and claimed constructive discharge; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
Element retaliatory-adversity: other: the court reuses its discrimination-claim "adverse employment action" / constructive-discharge finding for retaliation and does not apply the Burlington Northern material-adversity standard
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 31
| Case | Employer coverage and exclusions | Age forty or older | Hiring discharge or employment terms | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | Route-conditioned statutory f(1) and f(2) alternatives | Conditional state firefighter and law-enforcement hiring or retirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shoap v. City of Crossville — 321 F. Supp. 3d 839 (2018) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 31
| Case | Age sixty-five executive or high-policymaker compulsory retirement | Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice | Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity | Covered employment agency | Covered labor organization | Opposition or participation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shoap v. City of Crossville — 321 F. Supp. 3d 839 (2018) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits |
Elements 13–18 of 31
| Case | Judicial material-adversity standard for retaliation | Retaliatory causal connection | Agency referral discrimination | Membership classification referral or causing discrimination | Employer agency or union advertiser | Age-based notice or advertisement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shoap v. City of Crossville — 321 F. Supp. 3d 839 (2018) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–24 of 31
| Case | Wage reduction to comply | Employer agency union or combination maintaining a pension plan | Establish or maintain an employee pension benefit plan | Age-based accrual or allocation cessation or reduction | Subsection i pension qualifications and compliance | Conditional bona fide seniority system or benefit plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shoap v. City of Crossville — 321 F. Supp. 3d 839 (2018) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 25–30 of 31
| Case | Narrow bona fide occupational qualification | Displayed scope and specialized exclusions | Charge filing waiver and remedies | Foreign workplace conflict with local law | Good cause for employer discharge or discipline | Judicial outside-applicant coverage limit where circuit precedent controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shoap v. City of Crossville — 321 F. Supp. 3d 839 (2018) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 31–31 of 31
| Case | Reasonable factors other than age |
|---|---|
| Shoap v. City of Crossville — 321 F. Supp. 3d 839 (2018) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shoap v. City of Crossville — 321 F. Supp. 3d 839 (2018) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Hiring discharge or employment terms | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The constructive-discharge analysis is made under the Title VII heading (III.A.1) and carried into the ADEA claim by "As discussed above". | interim police chief resigned when a rival was considered for the permanent post; constructive discharge claimed on hiring delays and friction with a councilman | Shoap has filed an Affidavit stating that the conditions were "so intolerable" for him as of June 30, 2016, that he could not continue working.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [6562:6705] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de.Shoap resigned minutes after finding out Rosser was also under consideration for the permanent Police Chief position.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [12513:12630] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de.Shoap can only point to minor hassles, delays with the decision-making process for the permanent position, and several incidents with Kerley, who was not Shoap's supervisor/employer.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [12631:12813] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de.Finally, none of the seven tell-tale scenarios described by the Sixth Circuit occurred here; the day Shoap resigned he was in the same stead as the day he started.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [13306:13469] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de.To establish a constructive discharge, Shoap must present evidence showing 1) that Crossville "deliberately create[d] intolerable working conditions, as perceived by a reasonable person, and 2) [Crossville] did so 'with the intention of forcing [him] to quit.... ' "Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [10559:10825] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de.As discussed above, (1) there was no adverse employment action here and (2) Shoap has not established a question of fact as to whether he was constructively discharged. Crossville is therefore entitled to summary judgment on Shoap's ADEA discrimination claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [20548:20807] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de. |
| Shoap v. City of Crossville — 321 F. Supp. 3d 839 (2018) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2018 — not reached (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Opposition or participation | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsThe court states doubt ("The Court is doubtful as to whether Shoap engaged in a protected activity") but rests the retaliation ruling on the absence of an adverse action. | no written or informal complaint of age discrimination, only general objection to a councilman; court "doubtful" but does not decide | Here, Shoap did not make any written complaint or file any grievance with Crossville asserting any rights relevant to the ADEA.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [21909:22036] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de.All that Shoap's evidence suggests is that he voiced general (if fervent) objection to Kerley.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [22304:22398] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de.In the end it does not matter, because this claim fails even if there were a protected activity.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [22931:23027] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de. |
| Shoap v. City of Crossville — 321 F. Supp. 3d 839 (2018) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial material-adversity standard for retaliation | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence | voluntary resignation, no discipline, no constructive discharge; retaliation claim fails for want of any adverse action | Later that day, Shoap resigned.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [6108:6139] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de.Prior to the resignation, Hill did not fire Shoap or say he was going to fire Shoap.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [6454:6538] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de.Shoap was not subjected to discipline by Crossville at any time.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [6941:7005] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de.Crossville is therefore entitled to summary judgment on Shoap's ADEA retaliation claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [23197:23284] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de. |