 |
 |
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
because C & W had canceled his health insurance.
Whether Bartlett resigned or was fired is disputed. If this were the only question, we would have to reverse the summary judgment on the claim of retaliatory discharge. However, it is undisputed that Bartlett was not able to return to work. Bartlett testified that he was not physically able to return to work at C & W. Although he stated that he would have attempted to return to work if he had not been under the impression he had been fired, he also stated that, even though he would have tried, he would not have been able to perform his job . Because Bartlett was not able to return to work, his retaliatory discharge claim must fail.
We note that Bartlett argues that his case is analogous to Morell v. Tennessee Valley Press, Inc., [Ms. 2970876, November 6, 1998] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 1998). We disagree. The difference between this case and Morell is that Morell was able to perform her job after she completed her medical treatment. There was no evidence presented or argument advanced that Morell was unable to return to work. However, in this case, Bartlett testified that he was not able to return to work. Thus, he has failed to present evidence to support this "essential element." Therefore, the summary judgment was proper.
Bartlett also argues that the trial court erred in entering the summary judgment on his claim alleging the tort of outrage. To establish a claim alleging the tort of outrage, the plaintiff must show (1) that the actor intended to inflict emotional distress, or knew or should have known that emotional distress was likely to result from his conduct; (2) that the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff distress; and (4) that the distress was severe. Harris v. McDavid, 553 So. 2d 567 (Ala. 1989). The conduct alleged must be "so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society." Id. at 570; citing American Road Service Co. v. Inmon, 394 So. 2d 361, 365 (Ala. 1981).
Bartlett contends that C & W terminated his employment, refused to provide workers' compensation benefits, and treated him unfairly while he was recuperating from his back injury . He contends that C & W's actions caused him great distress and mental anguish in that he was also suffering from physical pain and from the stress of having no income with which to support his family. Assuming all Bartlett's allegations to be true, we conclude that the alleged conduct by C & W falls below the threshold of outrageous conduct as established by the Alabama Supreme Court. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court correctly entered the summary judgment on this claim.
AFFIRMED.
Robertson, P.J., and Yates, Crawley, and Thompson, JJ., concur.
|