Anderson v. Save-A-Lot, Ltd.
Tennessee Supreme Court
989 S.W.2d 277 (1999)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Bernice Anderson (plaintiff) was employed by Save-A-Lot, Ltd. (Save-A-Lot) (defendant), as a co-assistant manager of a grocery store in Memphis, Tennessee. Her immediate supervisor, Kenneth Bush, routinely followed Anderson around the store, made lewd gestures and remarks to her, and made graphic sexual comments about her body. Bush would often grab Anderson’s hand or bump against her when he made the unwelcome remarks. After Anderson reported the incidents to other management employees, an investigation was conducted and Anderson was transferred to another store. Due to Bush’s conduct, Anderson claims she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression and incurred medical expenses as a result. Anderson filed a complaint for workers compensation, seeking reimbursement for her medical expenses and lost earnings. She also filed a complaint in federal court alleging violations of state and federal civil rights. The trial court granted summary judgment for Save-A-Lot and Anderson appealed. A Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed the trial court’s judgment and held that Anderson’s injury arose out of, and in the course of, her employment with Save-A-Lot. Save-A-Lot appealed the ruling.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Drowota, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.