 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Flint Construction Co. v. Hall12/30/2004
.S. at 750-51. These factors are applicable to this proceeding.
V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment entered on the jury's verdict in this case.
AFFIRMED.
Houston, Brown, Johnstone, Harwood, Woodall, and Stuart, JJ., concur.
Nabers, C.J., concurs in the result.
See, J., dissents.
NABERS, Chief Justice (concurring in the result).
Flint's stated basis for its termination of Hall's employment was Hall's unexcused absences from work, especially at the Bastrop job site. At the time of the termination, however, Flint's decision-makers told Hall by telephone that his employment was being terminated because of lack of work. They later admitted that this was not true. I therefore conclude that Flint is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because, when the initial stated basis for a termination in a retaliatory-discharge case is shown to be untrue, numerous questions of fact are raised, which under our caselaw are for the jury to decide. See, e.g., Alabama Power Co. v. Aldridge, 854 So. 2d 554, 568 (Ala. 2002); Coastal Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 669 So. 2d 803, 810 (Ala. 1995); Culbreth v. Woodham Plumbing Co., 599 So. 2d 1120, 1122 (Ala. 1992).
Accordingly, I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion.
SEE, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
Robert Hall began to work for Flint Construction Company in 1980. On December 30, 1990, he injured his left knee while working for Flint. Flint paid the medical expenses associated with the knee injury . Flint settled the workers' compensation claim relating to Hall's knee injury, and later it settled a claim relating to a reinjury of that knee.
In April 1997, Hall injured his back while attempting to pick up a concrete form, and he filed a workers' compensation claim. Hall's doctor recommended that Hall have an MRI performed and that he have other treatment. Hall also consulted a chiropractor for the pain in his back. Hall testified that he had some difficulty getting the procedures approved under his workers' compensation insurance at Flint. Hall was absent from work for a number of days during this period, allegedly to attend doctors' visits and to receive treatments for his back.
On June 4, 1997, Hall received a letter from James Eaves, an executive at Flint, informing him that his employment had been terminated " ue to current circumstances." Hall filed an application for unemployment-compensation benefits with the Georgia Department of Labor indicating that he had been discharged and that Flint had given no reason for the discharge. The Georgia Department of Labor sent a form to Flint asking for a reason for Hall's discharge. Flint responded that Hall had been terminated because of a lack of work.
In 1999, Hall sued Flint seeking workers' compensation benefits and alleging retaliatory discharge and fraud. The trial court severed Hall's workers' compensation claim from the fraud and retaliatory- discharge claims. Hall settled the workers' compensation claim with Flint. The retaliatory-discharge and fraud claims went to trial. At trial, Hall presented conflicting evidence as to whether Flint claimed that Hall had been discharged because of a lack of work, because of excessive absences, or because of his gambling.
Section 25-5-11.1, Ala. Code 1975, states, in relevant part:
"No employee shall be terminated by an employer solely because the employee has instituted or maintained any action against the employer to recover workers' compensation benefits under this chapter ...."
At trial
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|