An Etowah Count Jury returned a defense verdict in a retaliatory discharge claim on September 30, 2009.

At trial, the evidence revealed that the employee was working for a lawn service company when he injured his left knee. According to the employer, the employee returned to work almost immediately with no medical restrictions. However, upon his return the employee was not completing jobs that were assigned to him and was having conflicts with other employees. As a result, the employer alleged it began to lose customers and terminated the employee. At the time of the termination, the employer stated that it was unaware of the status of the employee’s workers’ compensation claim.

According to the employee, he had returned to work at light duty and was undergoing physical therapy when the employer terminated him. At that point, the employee filed a lawsuit for workers’ compensation benefits and also claimed retaliatory discharge. The workers’ compensation claim was settled and the employer defended the retaliatory discharge claim stating that his termination was not the result of the workers’ compensation claim. Upon hearing the evidence and arguments, the jury returned a defense verdict.

M & J Materials, Inc. v. Isbell:

On May 7, 2010, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals released this opinion wherein it reversed the trial court’s decision to deny the employer’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Specifically, the evidence at trial revealed that the employer’s stated reason for terminating the employee was because he possessed a firearm on the employer’s premises. The judge denied the employer’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $5,000 in compensatory damages and $70,000 in punitive damages. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment because the employee failed to rebut the employer’s showing that the termination was based, in whole or in part, upon the employee’s reported open possession of a firearm. Although the employee offered witness testimony that other employees brought firearms to work and were not disciplined, it could not be shown that the other instances were brought to the attention of management. The employer, however, offered evidence that an employee who reportedly brought a hunting knife on the premises was discharged. Since that particular employee had not filed a workers’ compensation claim, it could not be shown that the rule against weapons on the employer’s premises was applied in a discriminatory manner (i.e. only against workers’ compensation claimants).

Early last year in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, the trial judge entered judgment in favor of a plaintiff in her retaliatory discharge claim but awarded her no compensatory or punitive damages.

In the beginning of September 2004 the employee was injured while working for her employer but she did not immediately file for workers’ compensation benefits. Later that month the employee received a letter stating that she was terminated because of her recent performance and not to contact the other employees directly.

In January 2005 , the employee filed for workers’ compensation benefits and that claim was eventually settled in December of 2006. However, during this same time period, the employee also filed a retaliatory discharge claim alleging that she was fired in retaliation for filing a worker’s compensation claim. The employee also alleged that the employer breached an oral contract by not providing her with a third of the business.

After a trial on the merits, the jury found in favor of the employer on the breach of contract claim and in favor of the employee on the retaliatory discharge claim but awarded no money in either compensatory or punitive damages.

Black Creek, Inc. v. Ray Keith Wood:

On March 12, 2010, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals released this opinion wherein it reversed a denial of a motion for a judgment as a matter of law (JML) from the Circuit Court of Etowah County and remanded the case for the trial court to enter a JML in favor of the employer. 

In February of 2000, the employee pulled a muscle loose from his left arm while working as a machinist for the employer. The injury needed surgery and, after determining that it was work related, the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier authorized the surgery. The surgery was performed on May 5, 2000. On June 8, 2000 the doctor that performed the surgery released the employee to light duty work.

On June 12, 2000 the employee returned to work, but during that week his work was sporadic with his time card showing he left work early three days to attend physical therapy. The employer had a policy that required employees to attempt to schedule their doctor and physical therapy appointments either before or after work and to notify their supervisor if those arrangements could not be made. Due to his failure to report his absences and use of foul language to his supervisor the employee was issued several disciplinary warnings. On June 20, 2000, the employee became upset with his supervisor, used foul language in the presence of other employees, and left the job. 

In August of 2000, the employee filed a workers’ compensation claim and also a retaliatory discharge claim. The two claims were severed and the workers’ compensation claim was eventually settled. After a trial in December of 2007, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the employee and awarded $50,000 in damages. The employer moved for JML at the close of the employee’s evidence and also at the close of the trial and both were denied. The employer appealed.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the employer had a legitimate reason for discharging the employee and that the trial court erred in not granting the motion JML. The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter JML for the employer.

James Nichols v. Material Delivery Services, Inc.:

On January 15, 2009, a Shelby County jury returned a verdict against an employer and assessed $75,000.00 in compensatory damages and $225,000.00 in punitive damages. At trial, it was the position of the employee that he was fired solely in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim which is not allowed in Alabama. It was the position of the employer that he was actually fired for waiting 6 hours to report his injury and not solely because he made a workers’ compensation claim. The employer has 42 days from the date of the verdict to file an appeal.

On June 25^th, 2009, a Jefferson County jury returned a verdict in favor of the employer in a retaliatory discharge lawsuit. It was uncontested that the plaintiff was terminated after making a workers’ compensation claim. However, it was the employer’s position that the employee was fired for failing to report for available light duty work. Specifically, the plaintiff injured her back at work and began receiving benefits. In the meantime, her doctor put her on modified duty. She subsequently received a letter from her employer informing her that they had implemented a light duty program and that she needed to drive to the company’s headquarters to start light duty. The plaintiff complained that she did not want to drive because it was a long way from her home and she was concerned about back problems while driving. Her physician, however, had not put any limitations on driving distance. As an alternative, the plaintiff asked to perform light duty closer to her home. This request was denied. When the plaintiff did not appear for light duty as directed, the employer sent her a letter terminating her employment for failing to comply with the absenteeism policy.

The plaintiff filed suit against her employer alleging retaliatory discharge. She claimed the light duty program was implemented only after she filed her workers’ compensation claim. The employer denied this allegation citing that their workers’ compensation insurance provider had suggested the light duty policy three or four months prior to its implementation. The jury ultimately sided with the employer.

Black Creek, Inc. v. Ray Keith Wood

On July 31, 2009, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge claim based on his filing a workers’ compensation claim. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant/employer should have received a Judgment as a Matter of Law.

The Court of Appeals held that the employee did not present substantial evidence that the employer’s basis for the termination was pretextual or false. The employer presented evidence that the employees use of foul language on the job and leaving work with out permission lead to the employee’s termination. The employee argued that "other employees did it", referencing the use of foul language, and they were not terminated. The Court of Appeals stated that this was not enough to prove the employer applied its policies in a discriminatory manner. This was further supported by several supervisors testifying that foul language was not acceptable.

Therefore, the employer established that the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim was not the sole basis for his termination.

Ex parte Gadsden Country Club:

On January 16, 2009, the Alabama Supreme Court released this opinion wherein it denied the employers’ petition for a writ of mandamus. Specifically, the employee sued for retaliatory discharge pursuant to§ 25-5-11.1, Ala. Code 1975. As a defense, the employer asserted that it fired the employee for leaving work after the accident that resulted in his on-the-job injury without first seeking medical attention, in violation of both his supervisor's instructions and GCC policy. The employee successfully convinced the trial court to strike this defense because the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations had already considered and rejected the defense at an administrative hearing concerning the employee’s unemployment claim. The Alabama Supreme Court denied the employer’s petition because it was determined that an post trial appeal rather than a petition for mandamus relief was the proper recourse.

As a practice pointer, it is important to take unemployment hearings seriously. The administrative law judge’s findings could determine whether you succeed or fail in a subsequent retaliatory discharge action.