This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Yardley (P) worked as a housekeeping aide and was hurt on the job and began receiving workers' compensation benefits. P received medical treatment for her injury. As of July 1, 2012, she was performing light-duty work for the Hospital's materials management group with the expectation that when released to full duty, she would return to her job as a housekeeping aide. On January 1, 2012, the Hospital entered into a contract with Hospital Housekeeping Systems (D), whereby D agreed to provide housekeeping services for the Hospital beginning July 1, 2012. D agreed to interview the Hospital's current housekeeping employees and, at D's discretion, hire the employees to continue in their positions. D hired most of the Hospital's housekeeping staff. As of July 1, 2012, P had neither been interviewed nor hired because she was still on light duty. P was released to full duty and sought to return to work in the housekeeping department. P spoke with D's Division Vice President, Michael Cox, who told her that D would not hire anyone receiving workers' compensation benefits or who was likely to receive them. Cox advised D not to hire P. P was not hired and sued D. The court certified the question. In Tennessee, there is no statutory or common law cause of action for retaliatory failure to hire. P argues that if employers can lawfully refuse to hire job applicants because the applicants have filed, or are likely to file, workers' compensation claims, such action by employers will have a chilling effect on workers' decisions to file claims and obtain their rightful remedies under the Act. P claims it would frustrate the purpose of the Second Injury Fund, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-208 (2014), which the Legislature established to encourage the hiring of workers who have suffered previous injuries. Amicus curiae, Tennessee Employment Lawyers Association, argues that an employer's failure to hire a job applicant because the applicant asserted a claim for compensation against a previous employer constitutes a device that would relieve an employer of an obligation under the Act; such devices are prohibited by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-114 (2014). D argues that there was no employer-employee relationship and that Tennessee's employment-at-will doctrine should be protected, that employers should be free to hire and fire as they choose, and that an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine should not be made under these facts.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.