 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BRIGHAM v. DILLON COMPANIES8/2/1996
Steve Brigham appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Dillon Companies, Inc., (Dillons) in Brigham's retaliatory demotion claim. On appeal, Brigham contends that the trial court inappropriately granted summary judgment because Kansas law either recognizes or should recognize as an actionable tort a demotion in retaliation for asserting a workers compensation claim. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Brigham worked at a Dillons' grocery store. He was promoted to grocery store manager. When he later began experiencing physical difficulties with his arms, he filed a workers compensation claim. He later had surgery to correct the abnormality. When Brigham returned to work after his surgery, he learned that he had been demoted to frozen foods manager.
Brigham sued Dillons, claiming that he had been demoted to the frozen foods department in retaliation for filing his workers compensation claim. Dillons moved for summary judgment, arguing that Brigham had failed to state a claim upon which any relief could be granted. In holding that the Kansas appellate courts> have not recognized the tort of retaliatory demotion, the trial court stated:
"The Kansas appellate courts> have not recognized retaliatory demotion as stating a cause of action in tort. In consideration of the rationale as stated above and the indication that no other jurisdiction has recognized such actions the court finds that the Kansas appellate courts> will defer the conflicting public policy issues to the Kansas legislature. Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted in this state."
Brigham argues that a demotion in retaliation for asserting a workers compensation claim is encompassed in the tort of retaliatory discharge. Because this issue presents a question of law, our standard of review is unlimited. See Gillespie v. Seymour, 250 Kan. 123, 129, 823 P.2d 782 (1991).
Several exceptions exist to the employment-at-will doctrine. One exception is the public policy theory adopted by the Kansas courts> in Murphy v. City of Topeka, 6 Kan. App. 2d 488, 630 P.2d 186 (1981). In determining that a discharge of an employee in retaliation for filing a workers compensation claim violated public policy and constituted a tort, the Murphy court stated:
"The Workmen's Compensation Act provides efficient remedies and protection for employees, and is designed to promote the welfare of the people in this state. It is the exclusive remedy afforded the injured employee, regardless of the nature of the employer's negligence. To allow an employer to coerce employees in the free exercise of their rights under the act would substantially subvert the purpose of the act." 6 Kan. App. 2d at 495-96. Brigham focuses on this language in his appellate brief as support for his position that a retaliatory demotion is included in the tort of retaliatory discharge. He argues that if the Murphy court had intended to limit the tort to dismissals it would have used more limiting language in its opinion. But Brigham ignores the language contained in Murphy which states: "Under the facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that the discharge of an employee in
retaliation for filing a workmen's compensation claim is actionable at law and may support an award of both actual and punitive damages." (Emphasis added.) 6 Kan. App. 2d 488, Syl. 7. Moreover, in recently stating that only two public policy exceptions exist to the employment-at-will doctrine, our Supreme Court stated:
"An employee-at-will is just that. He or she may be terminated without cause. The only exceptions thereto
Page 1 2 Kansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|