 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wal-Mart Stores11/21/2003
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., petitioned this Court pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R. App. P., for permission to appeal from the trial court's denial of its motion for a summary judgment in this retaliatory-discharge case. We granted the petition, and we reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
Peter Gregory Hepp was employed at a Wal-Mart discount department store as a manager in the "tire and lube express" service center. In November 1996, Hepp injured his back while on the job . He underwent back surgery and in November 1997 filed an action against Wal-Mart seeking workers' compensation benefits. On June 8, 1998, the trial court approved a settlement agreement between Wal-Mart and Hepp.
Also on June 8, 1998, Randy Baggett, a district manager for Wal-Mart, received a report that Hepp had been dispensing freon without charging a fee for the service. Baggett investigated the claim, and learned that Hepp had dispensed freon into his personal vehicle and a vehicle belonging to an acquaintance. Hepp had not charged for the service and had not prepared service orders for the vehicles; Wal-Mart required that a service order be prepared for each vehicle brought in for servicing. On June 10, 1998, Hepp was terminated for violating the following policies: "(1) performing work (i.e. dispensing freon) at the Riverchase [tire and lube express service center], which ... was not allowed, (2) failing to write up a service report on a vehicle for which he provided service[,] and (3) performing service on a personal vehicle."
Hepp filed for unemployment-compensation benefits with the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR") on June 28, 1998. On July 21, 1998, DIR denied Hepp benefits. Hepp appealed the denial to the appeals tribunal, as provided by Ala. Code 1975, § 25-4-91 and § 25-4-92, alleging that he was terminated because he had filed a workers' compensation claim against Wal-Mart, which had recently been settled.
A hearing was held on Hepp's appeal. Both Hepp and a representative from Wal-Mart participated in the hearing. On August 14, 1998, the appeals referee determined that Hepp had been discharged for "misconduct connected with his work," pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 25-4-78(3)(c), because Hepp had violated Wal-Mart's policy. The referee then held that Hepp was disqualified from receiving full benefits and was entitled to only reduced benefits under that Code section. Hepp did not appeal this decision.
After Hepp's hearing before the referee, but before the referee issued his decision, Hepp filed a complaint in the Shelby Circuit Court, seeking to reopen his 1997 workers' compensation case to consider vocational disability. He later amended his complaint to allege that Wal-Mart had discharged him in retaliation for his filing a workers' compensation action, in violation of Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-11.1. Wal-Mart moved for a summary judgment on the retaliatory-discharge claim, arguing that Hepp is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating the reason underlying his termination, which, Wal-Mart argued, the appeals referee had already determined was "misconduct connected with his work." The trial court denied Wal-Mart's motion, but certified its order for an interlocutory appeal under Rule 5, Ala. R. App. P.
Standard of Review
"This Court reviews de novo a trial court's denial of a summary judgment. See Young v. La Quinta Inns, Inc., 682 So. 2d 402, 403 (Ala. 1996) (citing Hightower & Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 527 So. 2d 698 (Ala. 1988)). Where, as in this case, the defendant moves for a summary judgment based on an affirmative defense, this Court applies the follow
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|