NASHVILLE, TN - The Tennessee Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, concluding that former trooper trainee Annajoel Sullivan failed to prove she was fired due to age, sex, or national origin discrimination.

Sullivan, a Russian-born woman who joined the Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP) in 2018 at age 46, was terminated during her probationary period in December 2019. Her dismissal followed a controversial traffic incident where she allegedly failed to properly investigate signs of driver impairment at the scene of a car crash. Sullivan chose not to administer a field sobriety test to a driver exhibiting multiple signs of intoxication, a decision that led to internal review and her subsequent firing for “serious neglect of duty.”

Sullivan filed suit under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), alleging that the Department discriminated against her based on her protected class status—age, gender, and national origin—and treated her less favorably than similarly situated troopers outside those classes.

In 2023, the Davidson County Chancery Court granted summary judgment to the Department, concluding Sullivan failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination. The court found she had not met her employer’s reasonable expectations and failed to demonstrate she was treated differently than any similarly situated employee.

On appeal, Sullivan argued that she had been held to a different standard and that male and younger troopers with comparable or worse infractions were treated more leniently. However, the appellate court disagreed, ruling that her cited comparators were not similarly situated because their infractions were deemed less severe under the Department’s disciplinary matrix.

The court emphasized that Sullivan’s failure to administer a field sobriety test—despite recommendations from other officers and visible signs of driver impairment—constituted a serious infraction. The Department had previously terminated a younger male trooper for the same offense, undermining Sullivan's claim of discriminatory treatment.

Further, the Court held that casual remarks made about Sullivan’s Russian origin and feelings of workplace alienation did not amount to direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination, particularly because none of those making the comments had a role in her termination.

“Statutes prohibiting discrimination are not vehicles for second-guessing employment decisions,” the Court wrote, reaffirming that employers may make personnel decisions—even unpopular ones—as long as they are not motivated by unlawful discrimination.

Documents from the outcome of the requested appeal were filed with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts were filed this past Friday, July 25, 2025. 

With the ruling, Sullivan's legal avenues appear exhausted, leaving the Department’s decision to terminate her employment fully upheld by Tennessee’s appellate courts.

Source: TN Court of Appeals
Source Case: No. M2023-01741-COA-R3-CV

DISCLAIMER: All suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The arrest records or information about an arrest that are published or reported on NewsRadio WGNS and www.WGNSradio.com are not an indication of guilt or evidence that an actual crime has been committed.