 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ford v. Carylon Corporation11/10/2005
s 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). This Court must review the record in a light most favorable to the non-movant and must resolve all reasonable doubts against the movant. Hanners v. Balfour Guthrie, Inc., 564 So. 2d 412, 413 (Ala. 1990).
Analysis
Ford argues that the trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion for a summary judgment as to his retaliatory-discharge and intentional-trespass claims. First, he contends, he presented substantial evidence indicating that the termination of his employment was in retaliation for his filing a workers' compensation action. Second, he argues that the defendants are liable in trespass for Eady's "willful removal of a safety device." (Ford's brief, at 40.)
I. Retaliatory Discharge
At the outset, we note that Carylon is the parent corporation of Video. A parent corporation generally cannot be held liable for the acts of its subsidiary unless the latter's corporate veil can be pierced as a result of the parent's abuse of control. Environmental Waste Control, Inc. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 711 So. 2d 912, 914 (Ala. 1997). There is not the faintest suggestion that Carylon used Video as its "alter ego"; thus we affirm the summary judgment as to Carylon. Further, because the retaliatory-discharge statute, quoted below, refers to an employee's being terminated "by an employer," Ala. Code 1975, ยง 25-5-11.1, this claim could be brought only against Video, not against Eady. Therefore we will consider Ford's retaliatory-discharge claim only in relation to Video.
Generally, an employment contract for an indefinite period is terminable at will for any reason or no reason. Webb Wheel Prods., Inc. v. Hanvey, [Ms. 1030272, June 3, 2005] __ So. 2d __, __ (Ala. 2005); Tyson Foods, Inc. v. McCollum, 881 So. 2d 976, 978 (Ala. 2003). Section 25-5-11.1, Ala. Code 1975, sets out an exception to the employment-at- will doctrine. It provides, in pertinent part:
"No employee shall be terminated by an employer solely because the employee has instituted or maintained any action against the employer to recover workers' compensation benefits under this chapter ...."
(Emphasis added.)
Before a trial court, a plaintiff bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing of the elements of retaliatory discharge. McCollum, 881 So. 2d at 979. These elements are:
"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) (emphasis added). Once this showing has been made and supported, the burden then shifts to the defendant, who must provide substantial evidence indicating a legitimate reason for the discharge, after which the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate by substantial evidence that the defendant's reasons were pretextual. 854 So. 2d at 567.
Typically, in an appeal in a retaliatory-discharge case, the employer/defendant offers nonretaliatory reasons to justify its decision to discharge the plaintiff/employee, thus attempting to dispel the notion that the plaintiff was discharged "solely" for filing a workers' compensation claim. See, e.g., Dunn v. Comcast Corp., 781 So. 2d 940, 942 (Ala. 2000)(offering as a nonretaliatory reason that the employee was
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|