Caraway v. Franklin Ferguson Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1987 |
| Citation | 507 So.2d 925 |
| Parties | Patricia Ann CARAWAY v. FRANKLIN FERGUSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY. 85-1371. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Henry F. Lee III of Lee and Fleming, Geneva, for appellant.
B. Stephen Sansom, Florala, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Covington County dismissing the plaintiff's suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The plaintiff, Patricia Ann Caraway, alleged that she was wrongfully discharged by her employer, the defendant, for maintaining a claim against the defendant to recover Workmen's Compensation benefits. The defendant moved to dismiss Caraway's complaint on the grounds that Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-11.1 (effective February 1, 1985), fails to provide damages for wrongful dismissal. Without a provision for damages, the defendant argues, there is no cause of action; therefore, the defendant says, Caraway failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We reverse and remand.
Section 25-5-11.1 specifically proscribes the termination of an employee solely because the employee has sought Workmen's Compensation benefits:
No employee shall be terminated by an employer solely because the employee has instituted or maintained any action against the employer to recover worker's compensation benefits under this chapter or solely because the employee has filed a written notice of violation of a safety rule pursuant to subdivision (c)(4) of section 25-5-11. (Acts 1984, 2nd Ex.Sess., No. 85-41, p. 44, § 11.)
In the present case, Caraway's complaint alleges that she was wrongfully discharged by the defendant because she sought to recover Workmen's Compensation benefits for an injury which, she alleges, she received while she was employed by the defendant.
The fact that § 25-5-11.1 does not delineate what damages may be awarded in the event of a violation of the statute has no bearing on the existence of a cause of action. The clear intent of the legislature in enacting § 25-5-11.1 was to prohibit the dismissal of an employee merely because that employee claimed Workmen's Compensation benefits or filed a written notice of a safety violation by the employer. The absence from the statute of a provision for damages is not a basis for dismissing the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that she has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The cause of action is clearly established by § 25-5-11.1.
Although § 25-5-11.1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Beaulieu of America, Inc.
...to recover for on-the-job injuries without bearing the usual burdens of proof. However, the Court noted in Caraway v. Franklin Ferguson Mfg. Co., 507 So.2d 925 (Ala.1987), that under Section 25-5-11.1, "damages can be awarded in accordance with the general law of torts." This, of course, wo......
-
Farrior v. Sodexho, U.S.A.
...to recover for on-the-job injuries without bearing the usual burdens of proof. However, the Court noted in Caraway v. Franklin Ferguson Mfg. Co., 507 So.2d 925 (Ala.1987), that under Section 25-5-11.1, "damages can be awarded in accordance with the general law of torts." This, of course, wo......
-
Niesent v. Homestake Min. Co. of California, s. 17933
...that have addressed this issue have placed their imprimatur on a cause of action for wrongful discharge. See Caraway v. Franklin Ferguson Mfg. Co., 507 So.2d 925 (Ala.1987); Douglas v. Wilson, 160 Ariz. 566, 774 P.2d 1356 (Ariz.App.1989); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Baysinger, 306 Ark. 239, 81......
-
Bleier v. Wellington Sears Co.
...has determined that under that statute damages can be awarded in accordance with the general law of torts. See Caraway v. Franklin Ferguson Mfg. Co., 507 So.2d 925 (Ala.1987). An employee who is discharged solely for filing a workers' compensation claim, but who is either unwilling10 or una......