 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bartlett v. C & W Machine Tool Inc.3/5/1999
The employee, Joseph Lee Bartlett, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the employer, C & W Machine Tool, Inc., on claims alleging retaliatory discharge and the tort of outrage.
On April 16, 1997, Bartlett sued C & W seeking workers' compensation benefits. He later amended his complaint to allege retaliatory discharge and the tort of outrage. C & W moved for a summary judgment on the claims alleging retaliatory discharge and outrage. While that motion was pending, the parties reached a settlement on Bartlett's workers' compensation claim, and on July 29, 1998, the trial court entered a judgment approving that settlement. On July 31, 1998, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of C & W on the claims alleging retaliatory discharge and the tort of outrage. Bartlett appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which transferred the case to this court pursuant to §12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975.
According to Rule 56(c)(3), a summary judgment motion shall be granted if the pleadings and evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The non-movant may defeat a properly supported motion for a summary judgment by providing "substantial evidence" creating a genuine issue of material fact. Gray v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 623 So. 2d 1156 (Ala. 1993). "Substantial evidence" is "evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can 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); see also § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975. In reviewing a summary judgment, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Turner v. Systems Fuel, Inc., 475 So. 2d 539 (Ala. 1985).
The Alabama Supreme Court has stated that an employee can prove a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge by showing:
"[The employee] filed a worker's compensation claim for a work-related injury ; the injury prevented him from working [for a period of time]; he subsequently returned to work; and upon his return he was informed that he no longer had a job ." Culbreth v. Woodham Plumbing Co., 599 So. 2d 1120, 1122 (Ala. 1992).
This court has also held that "an essential element of a retaliatory discharge claim is the plaintiff's willingness and ability to return to work." Consolidated Stores, Inc. v. Gargis, 686 So. 2d 268, 273 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996), cert. denied, 686 So. 2d 278 (Ala. 1996); see also Lambert v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 695 So. 2d 44 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).
The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Bartlett, reveal that he began working as a machinist for C & W in September 1987. On approximately January 4, 1997, Bartlett injured his back in the course of his employment. He sought medical treatment and was instructed to rest and to take medication for what was diagnosed as back strain. When his condition did not improve after a week, he sought additional treatment, and was diagnosed as having a herniated disc. His doctor provided paperwork stating that he had suffered an on-the-job injury. Bartlett's fiancee took the paperwork to C & W and gave it to one of the owners. She stated that the owner told her that Bartlett was "not welcome" at C & W. C & W apparently refused to provide Bartlett with workers' compensation benefits. Bartlett had back surgery and filed this action. Bartlett testified that no one at C & W had told him that he was terminated. He assumed he was terminated because, he says, one of the owners told his fiancee that he was not welcome there and
Page 1 2 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|