Templemire v. W&M Welding, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 93132.,SC 93132. |
| Citation | 433 S.W.3d 371 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | John TEMPLEMIRE, Appellant, v. W & M WELDING, INC., Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Bryan T. White, Gene P. Graham Jr., White, Allinder, Graham, Buckley & Carr LLC, Independence, for Templemire.
James T. Buckley of Buckley & Buckley, Sedalia, for W & M.
Gregory A. Rich, Dobson, Goldberg, Berns & Rich LLP, St. Louis, Marie L. Gockel, Bratcher Gockel & Kingston LC, Kansas City, for National Employment Lawyers Association.
Bradford B. Lear, Todd C. Werts, Lear Werts LLP, Columbia, for Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys.
Edwin H. Smith, Richard M. AuBuchon, Michael A. Moorefield, Polsinelli PC, Jefferson City, for Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Gary J. Willnauer, Peggy A. Wilson, Michael J. Kelly, Morrow Willnauer Klosterman Church LLC, Kansas City, for Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers.
John Templemire (hereinafter, “Templemire”) appeals from a jury verdict entered in favor of W & M Welding, Inc. (hereinafter, “Employer”) on Templemire's claim of retaliatory discharge in violation of section 287.780, RSMo 2000,1 after Templemire sought workers' compensation benefits and was discharged from his employment. Templemire raises two claims of instructional error regarding: (1) the proper causation standard an employee must demonstrate to make a prima facie case for retaliatory discharge under this statute and (2) whether an employee is entitled to submit an instruction regarding an employer's alleged pretextual motive for the employee's discharge.
This Court holds that to make a submissible case for retaliatory discharge under section 287.780, an employee must demonstrate his or her filing of a workers' compensation claim was a “contributing factor” to the employer's discrimination or the employee's discharge. To the extent the decisions in Hansome v. Northwestern Cooperage Co., 679 S.W.2d 273 (Mo. banc 1984), and Crabtree v. Bugby, 967 S.W.2d 66 (Mo. banc 1998), are inconsistent with this decision, they are overruled. This Court need not reach Templemire's alternative claim of instructional error regarding pretext. The circuit court's judgment is reversed, the case is remanded.2
Employer hired Templemire in October 2005 to work as a painter and general laborer whose job duties included driving trucks and washing parts in the wash bay. On January 9, 2006, Templemire was injured in the course and scope of his employment when a large metal beam fell from a forklift and crushed his left foot. Templemire's injury required surgery and the installation of plating and screws into his foot. Templemire reported the injury to Employer and filed a workers' compensation claim for which he received benefits.
Approximately three to four weeks following his injury, Templemire was cleared to return to work with certain restrictions. Templemire was instructed to wear a protectiveboot on his injured foot while at work and was prohibited from climbing ladders. The following month, Templemire's physician added a restriction preventing Templemire from driving a vehicle with a clutch. In July 2006, Templemire's physician ordered that he only perform seated work due to continuing complications from his injury. In September 2006, the seated restriction was lifted, but Templemire's physician implemented new restrictions, which included restraining him from climbing stairs, pushing, pulling, and standing longer than one hour without a fifteen-minute break.
As a result of these restrictions, Employer placed Templemire on “light duty” when he returned to work even though light duty work was not available when Templemire returned. Employer's owner, Gary McMullin (hereinafter, “McMullin”), accommodated the restrictions and created a light duty work assignment for Templemire by assigning him to be a tool room assistant to Nick Twenter (hereinafter, “Twenter”).
On November 29, 2006, Templemire remained on light duty. McMullin received a request from a customer to have a railing washed and painted for pick up later that afternoon. Templemire testified that when he arrived at work that morning, he did not speak to McMullin. Instead, Twenter informed Templemire that he would need to wash the railing, but that it was not ready. Twenter then assigned him to complete other tasks while the railing was prepared for washing. Templemire completed these tasks and returned to the job site. Around 1:50 p.m., Templemire went toward the wash bay to wash the railing. Before reaching the wash bay, Templemire stopped to rest his foot, which was infected.
During this break, McMullin confronted Templemire and cursed at him because the railing had not been washed. Templemire tried to explain the railing had just arrived in the wash bay, and he intended to wash the railing as soon as his break was over. After continuing to curse at Templemire, McMullin discharged Templemire effective immediately. Templemire asked McMullin if he was sure he wanted to fire him “because [he] was going to go home and call workman's [sic] comp?” to which McMullin replied, “I don't give a f––– what you do, this is my f–––ing place.”
After being terminated, Templemire contacted Liz Gragg (hereinafter, “Gragg”), the insurance adjuster on his workers' compensation claim. Gragg subsequently contacted McMullin to discuss Templemire's discharge. Gragg's notes from her conversation with McMullin reflected that, after Gragg indicated Templemire had work restrictions that required him to take a break, McMullin “went on a [tirade] about [Templemire] ‘milking’ his injury and that he can sue him for whatever reason that is what he pays his premiums for and the [attorneys].”
Templemire subsequently filed suit against Employer pursuant to section 287.780 alleging he was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. At the trial, McMullin characterized Templemire as a “high maintenance employee” and disputed Templemire's account of what transpired between them. McMullin testified he placed the railing in the wash bay early in the morning. McMullin directed Templemire to wash the railing immediately and to disregard any other assignments from Twenter or anyone else until the washing was complete. McMullin returned to check on Templemire's progress two hours later and found the railing unwashed and Templemire taking a break. McMullin testified that Templemire told him that he needed a break for his foot and if McMullindid not like it, he could take it up with Templemire's physician. McMullin advised Templemire that he did not work for Templemire's physician and discharged Templemire for insubordination.
Templemire presented evidence that McMullin yelled at him due to this injury and referred to other workers who had been injured as “whiners.” Templemire also offered testimony from former employees who were belittled as a result of their injuries and who did not receive work accommodations. One witness testified he was discharged shortly after filing a workers' compensation claim. Another witness testified that he overheard McMullin yell at Templemire, “[a]ll you do is sit on your a—and draw my money” during the argument that resulted in Templemire's discharge. Templemire's immediate discharge was contrary to Employer's progressive discipline policy, which was submitted into evidence. Templemire presented evidence about another employee who received multiple disciplinary write-ups and had a drug problem but had not been discharged. By contrast, after returning to work, Templemire received his only disciplinary write-up for failing to wear a paint mask while in the paint booth. Despite this one issue, Templemire was regarded as a good employee who performed his tasks efficiently.
During the jury instruction conference, Templemire argued MAI–23.13, 3 the applicable MAI-approved verdict director, misstated the law insofar as it required a finding that Templemire's filing of a workers' compensation claim was the exclusive factor in Employer's decision to terminate him to prevail on his claim. Templemire offered an alternative instruction stating the jury could find in his favor if the filing of the workers' compensation claim was a contributing factor to Employer's decision to discharge him.4 Alternatively, Templemire submitted a pretext instruction, which advised the jury that it could find exclusive causation if it found that Employer's stated reason for his discharge was a mere pretext, rather than the true reason stated.5 The circuit court refused both of Templemire's instructions and advised the jury it had to find the filing of a workers' compensation claim was the exclusive factor considered by Employer when it terminated Templemire for him to prevail on his claim. The jury returned a verdict in Employer's favor. After an opinion by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer.6Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10.
Whether a jury was instructed properly is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. Edgerton v. Morrison, 280 S.W.3d 62, 65 (Mo. banc 2009). “Instructional errors are reversed only if the error resulted in prejudice that materially affects the merits of the action.” Bach v. Winfield–Foley Fire Protection Dist., 257 S.W.3d 605, 608 (Mo. banc 2008).
Generally, “[w]henever Missouri Approved Instructions contains an instruction applicable to the facts of a case, such instruction shall be given to the exclusion of any other instructions on the same subject.” Rule 70.02(b). Rule 70.02 further provides that departure from an applicable MAI constitutes error, with its prejudicial effect to be determined judicially. Rule 70.02(b)-(c). If, however, a particular MAI does not state the substantive law accurately, it should not be given. State v. Celis–Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150, 158 (Mo. banc 2011).
Templemire argues the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pierce
...interpretations because it is there that the rule of law and respect for the separation of powers meet.” Templemire v. W & M Welding, Inc., 433 S.W.3d 371, 2014 WL 1464574 (Mo. banc 2014) (Fischer, J., dissenting). When, as in Templemire, the prior interpretation of the statute was inconsis......
-
D.E.G. v. Juvenile Officer of Jackson Cnty.
...is commonly true even when the error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction can be had by legislation. Templemire v. W & M Welding, Inc. , 433 S.W.3d 371, 387 (Mo. banc 2014) (Fischer, J., dissenting) (quoting Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co. , 285 U.S. 393, 406-10, 52 S. Ct. 4......
-
State v. Jackson
...interpretations because it is there that the rule of law and respect for the separation of powers meet.” Templemire v. W & M Welding, Inc., 433 S.W.3d 371, 2014 WL 1464574 (Mo. banc 2014) (Fischer, J., dissenting). When, as in Templemire, the prior interpretation of the statute was inconsis......
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Addison Ins. Co.
...for an abuse of discretion. Crabtree v. Bugby, 967 S.W.2d 66, 72 (Mo. banc 1998), overruled on other grounds by Templemire v. W & M Welding, Inc., 433 S.W.3d 371, 373 (Mo. banc 2014).In its judgment, the trial court found “that the requirements in Rule 74.04(c)(2) are mandatory” and that We......
-
Missouri Workers' Compensation Enhanced Benefits for Mesothelioma Victims: Too Crispy or Too Chewy?
...actions concerning, for example, repercussions from filing a workers' compensation claim. See Templemire v. W & M Welding, Inc., 433 S.W.3d 371, 385 (Mo. 2014), as modified (May 27, (53.) Kemp, supra note 49, at 897. (54.) 2A Mo. Prac. 4d Methods of Prac.: Litigation Guide [section] 27.......