 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fuller v. Astec Industries9/8/2000
Plaintiff's action seeking damages for retaliatory discharge for filing a worker's compensation claim was dismissed by the Trial Judge by summary judgment. Plaintiff has appealed.
Plaintiff was employed in 1986 as a fitter/welder, and the genesis of this action was an on-the-job injury claimed by plaintiff in October of 1995, where he sustained disabling injuries, rendering him unable to perform the duties of his former position. He was on medical leave of absence from his injury until October 7, 1996. In the fall of 1996, the employer created a new light duty position in the Department of Engineering for plaintiff, which duties consisted of inputting bills and materials into the computer for accounting purposes. He was hired on a trial basis for this job, with no guarantees as to permanence. He was employed in this job for approximately two months, and in December of 1996, the employer's President issued a directive that all department budgets were to be reduced by 10% across the board, and each department head was charged with the responsibility of formulating a plan to achieve this reduction. The Engineering Department elected to reduce the number of employees, laying off seven employees, including plaintiff, in January 1997. It was explained that plaintiff's position was abolished because it was not integral to the operation of the department.
Plaintiff's worker's compensation suit was settled on July 17, 1997, and he received a 60% permanent partial disability award. On January 5, 1998, he filed this action alleging a retaliatory discharge.
Responding to a Motion for Summary Judgment, the Trial Court entered a memorandum granting summary judgment.
Our standard of review for a motion for summary judgment is well settled. Our inquiry involves purely a question of law, and no presumption of correctness attaches to the Trial Court's judgment. See Tenn.R.App.P. 13(d); Hembree v. State, 925 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. 1996).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must also draw all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party's favor. See Staples v. SBL & Associates, Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83, 89 (Tenn. 2000). Courts should only grant summary judgment where both the facts and the inferences to be drawn from the facts permit a reasonable person to reach only one conclusion. See Staples.
A cause of action for retaliatory discharge based upon the filing of a worker's compensation claim is actionable in this State. Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co., 677 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn. 1984).
Four elements compose the cause of action for discharge in retaliation for asserting a workers' compensation claim:
(1) the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant at the time of the injury;
(2)the plaintiff made a claim against the defendant for worker's compensation benefits;
(3) the defendant terminated the plaintiff's employment; and
(4) the claim for workers' compensation benefits was a substantial factor in the employer's motivation to terminate the employee's employment. Anderson v. Standard Register Company, 857 S.W.2d 555-558 (Tenn. 1993).
The Trial Court found that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliatory discharge, in that he had not shown that his claim for worker's compensation benefits was a substantial factor in his employer's motivation to terminate him. Initially he failed to show facts to rebut the employer's statement of its legitimate business reason for termination. Specifically, the Trial Court found that plaintiff had offered no evidence to support a claim
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|