 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Flint Construction Co. v. Hall12/30/2004
, Hall presented evidence indicating that he had encountered a negative attitude from Flint regarding his injuries. Notably, Hall recounted an incident in which an executive at Flint had called him into his office and told him that Hall's previous knee injuries had cost the company $68,000. Hall also presented evidence indicating that Flint's original stated reason for discharging Hall -- that there was no work for him to do -- was false. Finally, Hall presented evidence indicating that the decision-makers at Flint were aware of his workers' compensation claims before they discharged him.
As the main opinion notes, in order to prove a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, a plaintiff must show:
"1) an employment relationship, 2) an on-the-job injury , 3) knowledge on the part of the employer of the on-the-job injury, and 4)subsequent termination of employment based solely upon the employee's on-the-job injury and the filing of a workers' compensation claim."
Alabama Power Co. v. Aldridge, 854 So. 2d 554, 563 (Ala. 2002). In the case before us, there is no question that there was an employment relationship, that there was an on-the-job injury , and that Hall's employment was terminated. Hall presented substantial evidence indicating that the decision-makers who were responsible for discharging him were aware of Hall's on-the-job injuries. What is less clear is the sufficiency of Hall's evidence indicating that Hall's discharge was "based solely upon the employee's on-the-job injury and the filing of a workers' compensation claim." Aldridge, 854 So. 2d at 563.
Once the plaintiff in a retaliatory-discharge action proves his or her prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, then the employer must come forward with evidence of a legitimate reason for the discharge. See Twilley v. Daubert Coated Prods., Inc., 536 So. 2d 1364 (Ala. 1988). Only after the plaintiff has proven a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge and the employer has offered a legitimate reason for the discharge does the "'" he plaintiff ... [have] the burden of going forward with rebuttal evidence showing that the defendant's [stated] reasons"' for terminating the plaintiff are not true." Culbreth v. Woodham Plumbing Co., 599 So. 2d 1120, 1122 (Ala. 1992)(quoting Twilley, 536 So. 2d at 1369, quoting in turn Pushkin v. Regents of Univ. of Colorado, 658 F.2d 1372, 1387 (10th Cir. 1981)). This Court has held that "an employee may establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge by proving that he was 'terminated' because he sought to recover workers' compensation benefits, which would be an impermissible reason." Twilley, 536 So. 2d at 1369. "'In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, the plaintiff must present substantial evidence that he was terminated solely for seeking workers' compensation benefits.'" G.UB.MK. Constructors v. Carson, 812 So. 2d 1175, 1177 (Ala. 2001) (quoting Kent Corp. v. Hale, 699 So. 2d 954, 958 (Ala. 1997)). "A plaintiff must prove a causal connection between the workers' compensation claim and the subsequent discharge in order to establish a prima facie case." Aldridge, 854 So. 2d at 563.
The only real evidence indicating that Flint discharged Hall "based solely upon [Hall's] on-the-job injury and the filing of a workers' compensation claim," Aldridge, 854 So. 2d at 563, is the evidence indicating that Flint's proffered reasons for discharging Hall were questionable and, therefore, pretextual. However, the main opinion is allowing the satisfaction of Hall's burden to respond to Flint's proffered legitimate reason for discharging Hall to satisfy Hall's initial obligation to show a causal connection between Hall's injury and workers' comp
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.
|
|