Lype Bob E Attorney At Law

Add to Favorites

Attorneys, Accident & Property Damage Attorneys, Adoption Law Attorneys

Be the first to review!

Add Hours

17 Years

in Business

(423) 499-0702Call Visit WebsiteVisit Website Map & DirectionsDirections6172 Airways BlvdChattanooga, TN 37421 Write a ReviewWrite Review

More Info

Neighborhood

Hickory Valley - Hamilton Place

AKA

Lype, Bob E, ATY

Bob E Lype Attorney at Law

Other Links

http://www.lypelaw.com

https://www.lypelaw.com

Categories

Attorneys, Accident & Property Damage Attorneys, Adoption Law Attorneys, Bankruptcy Law Attorneys, Bankruptcy Services, Business Law Attorneys, Business Litigation Attorneys, Construction Law Attorneys, Corporation & Partnership Law Attorneys, Criminal Law Attorneys, Discrimination & Civil Rights Law Attorneys, Divorce Attorneys, Domestic Violence Attorneys, Employee Benefits & Worker Compensation Attorneys, Employment Discrimination Attorneys, Estate Planning, Probate, & Living Trusts, Family Law Attorneys, Immigration Law Attorneys, Labor & Employment Law Attorneys, Malpractice Law Attorneys, Medical Malpractice Attorneys, Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law Attorneys, Personal Injury Law Attorneys, Professional Liability & Negligence Law Attorneys, Real Estate Attorneys, Sexual Harassment Attorneys, Wills, Trusts & Estate Planning Attorneys, Workers Compensation Assistance

Gallery

Be the first to add a photo!

Reviews

Hi there!
Be the first to review!

Click to Rate

Details

Phone: (423) 499-0702

Address: 6172 Airways Blvd, Chattanooga, TN 37421

Website: http://www.lypelaw.com

People Also Viewed

View similar Attorneys

Suggest an Edit

Lype Bob E Attorney At Law

Divorce
Adoption

Criminal Defense
My law practice is best described as a general civil practice, with a particular emphasis in certain matters, such as employment law (discussed below). I regularly represent both businesses and individuals, both in the context of planning, counseling, preparing documents, and the like, and also in the context of litigation and dispute resolution. While I do represent individuals, this is usually in the context of business matters, property matters, or contractual matters, rather than in purely personal matters such as divorces and the like. I do not practice in the area of criminal law.
Sex Crimes
In addition, employers can reduce their possible liabilities for negligent hiring and retention if they give proper attention to background checks. Most of us have heard the stories of the delivery man who was hired without ascertaining that he had multiple sex offense convictions, or the driver who was hired without learning that he had a horrible driving record, or the nursing home assistant who was hired without a check of the available abuse registry – all with devastating results. An employer's due diligence in the hiring process can provide a defense to liabilities for such claims.
Robbery
(B) " Mere hyperbole or exaggerated statements intended to make a point are not actionable defamatory statements." Farmer v. Hersh, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 513 (decided August 9, 2007). For example, comments that someone committed "pure highway robbery" or "ripped off" another have been held not to constitute actionable defamation, but instead were mere hyperbole. Farmer, supra, citing Stones River, supra. In fact, the Hersh Court cites an opinion from Pennsylvania which held that the statement that the plaintiff's comments "reflect the sort of paranoid thinking that you get from a schizophrenic" would be understood by a normal person as "mere hyperbole." The Hersh Court held that "obvious exaggerations tending to emphasize" what was viewed as an unfair purchase price were "permissible hyperbole and [were] not defamatory as a matter of law."
Burglary
Many violent acts in the workplace are committed by strangers, or "criminal perpetrators." These are persons who have no legitimate reason to be at the workplace, and who have no relationship with the employer or the employees. These perpetrators typically commit violent acts in the course of committing a crime, such as robbery, burglary, shoplifting or trespassing. Studies show that most workplace homicides are committed by these strangers. The employees most at risk of violence committed by a criminal perpetrator are those most likely to be targets of thieves or robbers, such as convenience store clerks, drivers, small store proprietors or managers, and others who handle money. Also at risk are employees who work alone, or who work late evenings or early mornings.
Theft
Misdemeanors
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-102 provides that it is unlawful for any person to "induce, influence, persuade or engage workers to change from one place to another in this state, or to bring workers of any class or calling into this state to work in any type of labor... through or by means of false or deceptive representations, false advertising or false pretenses, concerning the kind and character of the work to be done, or amount and character of the compensation to be paid for such work, or the sanitary or other conditions of the employment...". (Emphasis added). Not only is a violation of the statute a Class B misdemeanor, but the statute also gives the employee a right to sue for damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs. While it appears that this statutory cause of action has been rarely used by Tennessee employees, employers should be aware that it exists.
Embezzlement
There are limited exceptions which would permit a prospective employer to require submission to a polygraph, such as employers in security services (such as an armored car driver or a guard) or employers involved in pharmaceutical manufacture or distributing, but even then there are restrictions on the use of the tests. In addition, with some express restrictions, an employer may require submission to a polygraph test for employees suspected or certain workplace incidents (such as theft or embezzlement) which has resulted in loss by the employer, so long as there is "reasonable suspicion," but in those cases, there are strict requirements for how the tests must be conducted. In addition, the regulations define "reasonable suspicion" as "an observable, articulable basis in fact which indicates that a particular employee was involved in, or responsible for, an economic loss." The "reasonable suspicion must involve something more than the mere fact that the employee had the potential opportunity to cause the loss.
Assault
Finally, in Limbaugh v. Coffee Medical Center, 59 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2001), the Tennessee Supreme Court decided an important case for employers to consider in this context. In Limbaugh, the Court considered how to apportion fault between an employee who has committed an intentional act and an employer whose negligence allowed the act to be committed. In that case, the plaintiff was assaulted by a nursing assistant. Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court awarded the plaintiff $25,000 against the nursing assistant for assault and battery, plus $40,000 against the employer hospital for its negligence. The Court of Appeals reversed as to the employer on grounds of statutory immunity. The Supreme Court held that the employer hospital was not immune for its own negligence in failing to protect the resident, and that when a plaintiff is injured by the intentional acts of one tortfeasor, made possible by the negligence of another tortfeasor, and where both tortfeasors are parties to the lawsuit, they are jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of damages awarded. In other words, the plaintiff could pursue the employer for both the $25,000 award and the $40,000 award. Presumably the employer could seek contribution and indemnity against the employee, since the employer was "only" negligent, but if the plaintiff enforced the full judgment against the employee, the employee could not seek contribution and indemnity from the employer because the employee's acts were intentional. (This is discussed in footnote 11 of the opinion).
Murder
The employer's risk of liability based upon acts of workplace violence perpetrated by third parties will always be dependent upon a duty analysis, which will include consideration of a wide range of factors. Therefore, there is no simple set of guidelines which can be followed. However, the risks of liability for employers due to acts of workplace violence committed by third parties can be substantial. For example, the family of an employee killed in a murder-suicide committed by the employee's ex-boyfriend in Chicago in 2010 sued the employer, Old Navy, alleging that it failed to take precautions to protect its employees after the perpetrator had called the store and made threats to managers (n. 36). Families of four killed in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina sued the facility after a March, 2009 shooting, claiming that the employer was aware of a specific threat, but failed to take proper safety measures to protect guests and staff. The perpetrator killed his estranged wife and seven others (n. 37). In November, 2016, a Texas jury awarded the estate of an employee, a military veteran murdered by a co-worker, more than One Million Dollars in a civil lawsuit alleging that the employer was negligent in providing an unsafe workplace and failing to warn the employee of the perpetrator's dangerous tendencies (n. 38).
Identity Theft
(5) Protecting sensitive employee information. With the tremendous growth in identity theft, and with the theft frequently occurring in the workplace, employers may be at risk when they are negligent in protecting confidential employee information, resulting in theft. Personnel files and payroll records may contain a wealth of sensitive information, including Social Security numbers, birth dates, etc. While there is currently no Tennessee statute imposing a specific duty on private employers in these regards, the general laws of negligence, invasion of privacy, negligent supervision, etc. may be applicable.
Homicide
Moreover, approximately half a million "aggravated" assaults, rapes, robberies and murders occur in the workplace each year in America. Homicide is the third leading cause of fatal occupational injuries for all workers (the second leading cause for female workers), accounting for more about 11% of work fatalities each year.
Shoplifting
Restraining Order
Tennessee's criminal code provides for potential criminal charges related to "harassment" (n. 16), which includes communicating threats of harm either verbally or through maliciously displaying images, as well as "stalking" (n. 17), which includes following, monitoring, threatening, or repeated contacts which cause the victim to feel frightened, intimidated or threatened. The stalking statute includes contact by telephone or by computer, specifically including social media ( i.e., cyber-stalking). Therefore, in addition to seeking the civil remedy of a restraining order and injunction, the victim of workplace violence or bullying might also make a criminal complaint. Of course, there is always the possibility that restraining orders and criminal charges could lead to further, possibly more severe confrontations, so many victims of workplace violence fear using these remedies.
Extortion
What Constitutes "Workplace Violence?" There is no single definition of workplace violence. It is not limited to on-site physical attacks. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, it includes physical assaults and threats of assault, as well as verbal violence, threats of verbal abuse, hostility and harassment (n. 10). OSHA defines workplace violence as "any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening or disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site" (n. 11). A related Tennessee statute defines "unlawful violence" to mean "assault, aggravated assault, stalking, intimidation or extortion" (n. 12) Therefore, "bullying" and threats can be types of workplace violence, regardless of whether they escalate to physical violence.

Business and Corporate Law

Corporate Law
Without any history of judicial decisions which established how certain situations would be viewed, the drafters of the Act were able to draft provisions to address problem areas under corporate law. Section 48-217-101(e) provides, for example, that failure to follow the usual company formalities or requirements will not be a ground for imposing liability upon the owners or manager. Section 48-214-102 provides that in all events the liability of a member of a Tennessee LLC is to be governed by the Tennessee LLC statute and the laws of Tennessee. The lack of judicial history may be a double-edged sword, however. The provisions of the Act, for the most part, have not been tested by the courts, and it is still to be determined whether in a given situation, a court will view an LLC under partnership law with joint and several liability or under corporate law with limited liability. It is due to this uncertainty that we suggest that selection of the more corporate-like, board managed form of LLC and taking the normal corporate actions, such as regular board meetings, may sway a court to apply the corporate body of law.
Business Disputes
Limited Liability Companies
(d) Limited Liability Company. Limited liability companies are relatively new creations in Tennessee and, for that matter, in the United States. They are primarily tax-driven entities which combine the tax benefits of partnerships with the liability protections of corporations. The Tennessee Limited Liability Company Act specifically provides that a limited liability company is to be viewed as a partnership for tax purposes.
Trade Secrets
Intellectual Property
Unfair Competition
"Business torts" is a generic term which has gained wide use in the last decade to describe a loose category of various claims for economic and business losses caused by wrongful conduct, apart from a breach of contract. Typically "business torts" encompass such claims as fraud, misrepresentation, unfair competition, trademark or trade secret infringement, and wrongful interference with contracts or business relationships (existing or prospective). Recently the Tennessee Supreme Court changed the legal landscape in Tennessee by expressly recognizing a cause of action for intentional interference with business relationships, including prospective and non-contractual relationships, in Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Company

Workers Compensation
The Tennessee Court of Appeals has held that an "unauthorized alien" (or "undocumented worker" or "illegal alien") who was employed by a Tennessee employer, who was injured on the job, who asserted a workers' compensation claim, and who was then terminated from his employment, does have standing to file a lawsuit asserting retaliatory discharge against his employer.
Wrongful Termination
Consider Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, Inc., 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 11949 (6th Cir. 2005), which involved an employee's wrongful discharge claims, which also included claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, under Tennessee law. The employee was awarded a judgment for $2.2 Million in compensatory damages and $2.5 Million in punitive damages, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the award. The basis for the punitive damages award under Tennessee law was the employer's recklessness, i.e., its conscious disregard for the substantial ans unjustifiable risk of harm to the employee. The company knew what was happening to the employee ( i.e., serious harassment), but the company did almost nothing to stop the conduct, and it barely investigated the employee's complaints. The company was not held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees; it was held directly liable for its own failure to act.
Employment Discrimination
Most employers are keenly aware of certain types of prohibited employment discrimination and harassment, such as that based upon sex, age, or disability. And many employers are also aware, at least in some general sense, that employment discrimination law covers other types of unlawful employment discrimination, including that based upon the employee's or applicant's national origin or religious preferences. However, while nearly all employers routinely face employment decisions involving employees or applicants over age 40, or with some physical or mental disability, and while nearly all employers must deal with the equal treatment of men and women in the workplace, a great many employers have never faced situations involving different treatment of employees and applicants based upon their national origin or their religion.
Employment Contract
Tennessee developments in this area are minimal. There are few cases and few statutes which specifically address off-duty conduct of employees. Tennessee does recognize causes of action for unlawful discrimination, invasion of privacy (discussed in more detail below), and breach of an employment contract. Tennessee employers should expect that more privacy-related cases will be filed and decided under Tennessee law, as well as other cases involving questions concerning employment decisions and actions based upon employees' off-duty conduct. We should expect that Tennessee courts will look to decisions from other jurisdictions for guidance, and therefore, these materials will make reference to decisions from other states, as well as Tennessee cases.
Employment Litigation
Employment claims are difficult and expensive to defend, and the outcomes are hard to predict. Since juries are typically made up of persons likely to identify with employees, every employer wants to avoid ever having to go to court, and if you ever do go to court, you want your "exposure" to be as limited as possible. Here are five things employers can (and should) do to minimize liability.
Non-compete Agreement
More recently, in a December, 2010 case from New York, Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, Inc. (n. 10), this question was resolved in a surprising twist to an employer. In Pure Power, employees of a gym had signed non-compete agreements, but they decided to set up a competing business. The employer filed a lawsuit based upon the non-compete agreements, using as evidence 546 e-mails from the employees' Hotmail® and GMail® accounts which showed that the employees had taken customer lists and training materials, as well as solicited customers. But how did the employer get access to the e-mails? It turned out that the computers the employees used while working for the employer "auto-stored" the user-name and password fields, so the employer simply logged on as the employees after they had left their employment (and, in fact, after the lawsuit was underway). The employees counter-sued the employer for violations of the Stored Communications Act, and the court agreed that violations had occurred, granting partial summary judgment in their favor. Moreover, the court stated that, even if the employees had not sustained actual damages, they were awarded $1,000 as statutory damages per violation. The employees wanted the court to find 546 separate violations, but it instead found that due to the proximity in time of the access to the e-mails, there was only one violation.
Severance Agreement
However, employers do not always win these lawsuits. For example, in Vargo v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., 115 S.W.3d 487 (Tenn. App. 2004), the employee was terminated and sued for damages under the company's "severance policy," claiming the policy gave her a "vested right to severance pay under the facts." After reciting the general rules discussed above, the Court of Appeals held in favor of the employee. In so doing, the Court stated...
Sexual Harassment
It was not so very long ago that employers and the lawyers who advise them were faced with a new set of legal issues because of developing technologies called "the internet" and "e-mails." Businesses were intrigued by the seemingly endless possibilities for how these new methods of communicating could enhance the productivity of their workers. It was only during the early-to-mid 1990s that the internet, as we know it, was commercialized. In 1995, the business world and employment lawyers learned of a potential down-side for the new technologies when Chevron Oil Company paid $2.2 Million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by employees who alleged that Chevron had permitted its internal e-mail system to be used to disseminate sexually offensive content, including a "joke" e-mail which asked, "Why is beer better than women?" One of the joke answers was, "Beer doesn't demand equality." (n. 1). After this settlement, employers realized the frightening potential liabilities which might arise because of the conversational ease with which e-mail messages could be sent and received, combined with common misconceptions about the permanency of jokes and suggestive e-mails after they are "deleted." As a result, employment lawyers sought to "get ahead of" the new technologies by suggesting monitoring employees' use of e-mail and internet on employer-provided computer systems.

Premises Liability
In other cases, an employer may face liability for its own acts or omissions when the perpetrator of workplace violence is not an employee, but the violence occurs at the employer's workplace. These claims can include claims ranging from premises liability generally to claims based upon duties which arise when the employer has a "special relationship" with either the individual who is the source of the danger or the person who is at risk (n. 33). Generally a business has a duty to take reasonable measures to protect its customers from foreseeable criminal attacks (n. 34). However, the employer who owns the premises is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any care until he knows or has reason to know that the acts of the third person are occurring, or are about to occur (n. 35).
Construction Litigation
Easement
Land Use and Zoning
Property Damage
When an employee commits an act "within the course and scope of employment" which results in injury to some third party, the employer is generally liable to the third party under the doctrine of "respondeat superior." This legal principle is based on the reasoning that an employee on his employer's business is an agent of the employer, so the acts and omissions of the employee are actually the acts and omissions of the employer. The employer is "vicariously" liable. So for example, when your employee is making a delivery and runs a red light, causing an accident resulting in property damage and/or injuries, to the extent your employee was at fault, you will likely be held liable. Of course, hopefully you have adequate insurance coverage.

Immigration Law

Citizenship and Naturalization

Personal Injury
Within my general civil practice, I have particular experience in trial work and litigation. This includes litigation in matters of employment law, business and commercial litigation, and estate-related litigation. I also have an active insurance defense litigation practice in matters related to employment practices liability and personal injury liability defense, which affords me a significant amount of litigation experience.
Medical Malpractice
Certifications of specialization are available to Tennessee lawyers in all areas of practice related to or included in the areas of Civil Trial, Criminal Trial, Business Bankruptcy, Consumer Bankruptcy, Creditor's Rights, Medical Malpractice, Legal Malpractice, Accounting Malpractice, Elder Law, Estate Planning and Family Law. Listing of related or included practice areas herein does not constitute or imply a representation of certification of specialization.
Disability Discrimination

Trusts and Estates

Estate Planning
Wills

Bankruptcy
Foreclosure
The Act contains these primary protections: (1) collections actions and civil lawsuits against active service personnel are postponed until the service member is able to return and adequately protect his or her interests; (2) repossessions and foreclosures against active service personnel are prohibited, unless there is specific court permission; (3) a maximum interest rate of 6% is available with respect to all pre-service obligations (including home mortgages); (4) service members can terminate leases with 30 days' notice; (5) guaranteed life insurance premiums are available in order to continue coverage; (6) courts may not enter default judgments against service members, unless specific guidelines are followed; and (7) the time within which a service member may file suit or be sued is extended while he or she is in active duty.

View All Services

Provided by