 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Webb Wheel Products12/30/2004
reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So. 2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989). Furthermore, "we review the record as of the time the motion for a JML was renewed at the close of all the evidence." Alabama Power Co. v. Aldridge, 854 So. 2d 554, 561 (Ala. 2002).
B. Prima Facie Case
In Aldridge, we clarified the rule that " plaintiff must prove a causal connection between the workers' compensation claim and the subsequent discharge in order to establish a prima facie case." 854 So. 2d at 563. We then reiterated the elements that a plaintiff must prove to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge:
"In order for an employee to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge the employee 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."
854 So. 2d at 563.
It is undisputed that Hanvey proved the first three elements: He was employed by Webb Wheel, he injured his back at work, and Hill, Allen, Link, and Alward all undisputedly knew about the on-the-job injury. In addition, the record reflects that Hill, Allen, Link, and Alward all knew that Hanvey had filed a workers' compensation claim as a result of the injury. Webb Wheel argues that it was entitled to a JML because, it argues, Hanvey did not prove that he was discharged solely because he filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, relying on that portion of Aldridge in which we stated that "where a conclusive determination can be made that retaliation is not the sole basis for the discharge a judgment as a matter of law is appropriate." 854 So. 2d at 568. In the succeeding sections of this opinion, we address the evidence presented of the components of such a determination.
C. Discharge or Layoff
Section 25-5-11.1, Ala. Code 1975 ("No employee shall be terminated by an employer solely because the employee has instituted ... any action ... to recover workers' compensation benefits ....") deals only with a retaliatory discharge, not merely a layoff. (Emphasis added.) Webb Wheel insists that Hanvey was not discharged because, it argues, the evidence conclusively established that Hanvey was laid off while Webb Wheel was engaged in a workforce reduction that resulted in the layoffs of 37 employees, including Hanvey. Webb Wheel maintains that the evidence showed that it initiated the workforce reduction because of an economic downturn, that Hanvey's department was one of the hardest hit, that other employees with more seniority than Hanvey were also laid off during the workforce reduction, and that it tried to recall all of the laid-off employees, including Hanvey, to return to work after the layoffs ended. Therefore, Webb Wheel concludes, Hanvey has not established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, citing Yates v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Co., 670 So. 2d 908 (Ala. 1995) (plaintiff who had been laid off pursuant to employer's reduction in staff did not establish prima facie case of retaliatory discharge); G.UB.MK. Constructors v. Carson, 812 So. 2d 1175 (Ala. 2001) (plaintiff did not establish prima facie case of retaliatory discharge because he was laid off in reduction of workforce); Kent Corp. v. Hale, 699 So. 2d 954 (Ala. 1997) (plaintiff did not establish essential element of having been discharged because he made decision to discontinue working for employer).
Hanvey argues that Webb Wheel is not entitled to a JML becaus
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|