wrong. Barger v. Webb, 216 Tenn. 275, 391 S.W.2d 664, 666-667 (1965). The election of remedies doctrine has two general applications: (1) a plaintiff may be estopped from pursuing additional remedies once a plaintiff has made a choice to pursue a specific remedy in another forum or lawsuit, Purcell Enterprises, Inc. v. State, 631 S.W.2d 401,409 (Tenn.App.1981); and (2) a plaintiff may be forced to elect between different remedies “[w]here the remedies are so inconsistent or repugnant that pursuit of one necessarily involves negation of the other.” Wimley v. Rudolph, 931 S.W.2d 513, 515 (Tenn.1996). Neither situation is present in the case now before us. The plaintiff in this case has not received compensation from a prior settlement or award. See Barger v. Webb, 391 S.W.2d at 666-667 (<HOLDING>). She has not attempted to seek “double redress
holding that performance may be valid acceptance holding that tribal entity was not equitably estopped from asserting immunity because misrepresentations of the tribes officials or employees cannot affect its immunity from suit holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit holding that plaintiffs acceptance of checks representing entire eeoc award precluded him from filing suit holding acceptance of settlement estopped plaintiff from subsequent suit