Alabama is an “employment at will” state and the Alabama Supreme Court has stated that an employer may terminate an employee for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. See, Howard v. Wolff Broadcasting Corp., 611 So. 2d 307 (Ala. 1992). However, employees cannot be terminated for illegal reasons. Federal employment discrimination laws provide many protections against illegal discrimination but it is beyond the scope of this article to delve into those.

In the context of Alabama workers’ compensation claims, Ala. Code § 25-5-11.1 provides that “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.”

This sounds very good on paper but can sometimes be difficult to prove. The Alabama Supreme Court has placed much of its focus on one word from that statute, the word “solely.” A worker who makes a workers’ compensation claim and is subsequently terminated must be able to show that the employer terminated the employee solely because of the workers’ compensation claim.

Revealing the employer’s retaliatory motive can be difficult. Alabama courts have made that task a little easier by allowing proof by circumstantial motive of the employer’s motivation. Our courts have illustrated various categories of circumstantial evidence which can help with proof of this claim. It is not necessary to prove each of these categories, but obviously, the more the better.

  1. The closeness in time between the workers’ compensation claim and the termination: 6 Arthur Larson and Lex K. Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 104.07[3] (2001), states: “Proximity in time between the claim and the firing is a typical beginning-point, coupled with evidence of satisfactory work performance and supervisory evaluations. Any evidence of an actual pattern of retaliatory conduct is, of course, very persuasive.” Ala. Power Co. v. Aldridge, 854 So. 2d 554, 564 (Ala. 2002). Proximity in time between the filing of the workers’ compensation claim and discharge is a persuasive factor in establishing a causal connection. Ford v. Carylon Corp., 937 So. 2d 491, 493 (Ala. 2006).
  2. Knowledge of the workers’ compensation claim by firing decision-makers: In order for the termination to be retaliatory, there must be knowledge of the workers’ compensation claim by those making the decision to terminate. Ala. Code § 25-5-11.1 demands that there be specific knowledge of the plaintiff’s claim for benefits on the part of the one who terminated the plaintiff and that such knowledge be the sole motivating force behind the termination. The plaintiff must demonstrate a direct and distinct causal link between one having knowledge of the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim and the termination. Ford v. Carylon Corp., 937 So. 2d 491, 493 (Ala. 2006)
  3. Expression of negative attitude toward injured condition or workers’ compensation claims: An expression of a negative attitude toward the employee’s injured condition or workers’ compensation claims, in general, can be used as circumstantial evidence of the retaliatory motive.
  4. Failure to adhere to corporate policy: An employer’s stated basis for a discharge is sufficient as a matter of law when the underlying facts surrounding the stated basis for the discharge are undisputed and there is no substantial evidence indicating that the stated basis conflicts with express company policy on grounds for discharge. Ala. Power Co. v. Aldridge, 854 So. 2d 554, 568 (Ala. 2002)
  5. Discriminatory treatment compared to others similarly situated: An employer’s stated basis for a discharge is sufficient as a matter of law when the underlying facts surrounding the stated basis for the discharge are undisputed and there is no substantial evidence indicating that the stated basis has been applied in a discriminatory manner to employees who have filed workers’ compensation claims.
  6. Changes to the evaluation of the employee after a workers’ compensation claim: Sudden changes in an employee’s work performance evaluations following a workers’ compensation claim can be used to prove a retaliatory motive.
  7. Other evidence that the corporation’s stated reason is false: Other evidence that the stated reason for the discharge was false can be helpful. “The plaintiff does not have to ‘prove’ that the employer’s stated reason is not true unless the defendant’s evidence is sufficiently certain, without more evidence from the plaintiff, to support a directed verdict. If the plaintiff’s prima facie case is strong, and the defendant’s evidence of an asserted reason is weak or equivocal, the jury might simply disbelieve the defendant.” Culbreth v. Woodham Plumbing Co., 599 So. 2d 1120, 1122 (Ala. 1992).

Note that the statute of limitations or legal deadline for filing a wrongful termination (or retaliatory discharge) claim is two years from the date of the termination. Failure to file suit within the two-year claim will result in the claim being barred. If you believe you’ve been wrongfully terminated, please don’t hesitate to contact a seasoned Birmingham workers’ compensation lawyer from our firm today.