 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mosley v. Truckstops Corp. of America6/2/1993
Order Modifying Opinion on Limited Grant of Rehearing May 9, 1994.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing May 9 and May 11, 1994.
As Corrected June 2, 1994.
RICK MOSLEY, APPELLEE,
v.
TRUCKSTOPS CORPORATION OF AMERICA d/b/a TRUCKSTOPS OF AMERICA, APPELLANT.
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Division 1; Thomas C. Smith, District Judge.
G. Thorne Stallings, Jr., Blanchard, for appellee.
Melvin C. Hall, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF APPEALS OPINION VACATED IN PART AND MATTER REMANDED TO COURT OF APPEALS FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: KAUGER, Judge.
Two issues are presented: 1) whether the trial court's refusal to give a jury instruction relieving an employer of liability for terminating an employee for misconduct discovered after the employee was terminated is grounds for reversal; and 2) whether, without out the requested instruction, the jury was misled and failed to consider fully other evidence of legitimate non-retaliatory reasons for which the employee may have been discharged. We find that: 1) a jury instruction relieving an employer of liability for terminating an employee engaged in misconduct discovered after the employee was terminated is contra to Oklahoma retaliatory discharge jurisprudence and giving the instruction is reversible error; and 2) the instructions given were consistent with Oklahoma retaliatory discharge law.
FACTS
Truckstops Corporation of America (Truckstops/employer) hired Rick Mosley (Mosley/employee) as a mechanic in November of 1989. On April 5, 1990, Mosley slipped in a pit and injured his ankle. He worked the remainder of his shift and all the next day. The employee received treatment for the injury on April 7, 1990; and he contacted Truckstops on April 9, 1990, concerning his injury and medical treatment. The employer sent Mosley to a doctor who gave the employee a release to return to work; and he was not scheduled to work again until April 13, and 15, 1990. The employee returned to work as scheduled, and he worked his entire shift on both dates.
At this juncture, the employee and employer differ on the facts. The employee's version is that he attempted to contact Truckstops on April 16, 1990, in reference to his visit to the doctor, but that he was unable to reach the employer. The employee insists that on April 17, 1990, he discussed his injury with Truckstops and informed them that he needed time off to recuperate. Later that same day, the employee returned to the doctor and received another limited work release. The employer contends that the employee did not show up for work on April 16, 1990, and that he did not call in. The employer denies having a conversation on April 17, 1990, concerning the employee's need to recuperate.
The employee further asserts that he informed Truckstops on April 24, 1990, that his condition had not improved and that he consulted a lawyer in reference to a workers' compensation claim. On that same day, the employee noticed that he was not on the next weeks work schedule. On April 25, 1990, the employee retrieved his tool box from Truckstops for safekeeping. He attempted to contact Truckstops again on April 26, 27, and 30, 1990. The employee insists that because he had not received a full paycheck for several weeks, on May 1, 1990, he inquired concerning his eligibility to obtain food stamps. It was at this time that the employee learned
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|