Davis v. Dillmeier Enterprises, Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 November 1997
• Docket Number: No. 97-360,97-360
• Citation: 956 S.W.2d 155,330 Ark. 545
• Parties: , 11 NDLR P 265 Cynthia DAVIS, Appellant, v. DILLMEIER ENTERPRISES, INC. Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 155

956 S.W.2d 155

330 Ark. 545, 11 NDLR P 265

Cynthia DAVIS, Appellant, v. DILLMEIER ENTERPRISES, INC. Appellee.

No. 97-360.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Nov. 13, 1997.

William J. Kropp, III, Fort Smith, for Appellant.

Gary W. Udouj, Fort Smith, for Appellee.

CORBIN, Justice.

Appellant Cynthia Davis appeals the judgment of the Sebastian County Circuit Court dismissing with prejudice her complaint against Appellee Dillmeier Enterprises, Inc., for discrimination in violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993, Ark.Code Ann. §§ 16-123-101 to -108 (Supp.1995). The trial court dismissed Appellant's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that Appellant's claim was covered by the Workers' Compensation Act, Ark.Code Ann. §§ 11-9-101 to -1001 (Repl.1996). This case presents an issue of first impression requiring statutory interpretation; hence, our jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark. Sup.Ct. R. 1-2(a)(17)(i) & (vi). The sole issue raised by Appellant is whether an employee who is discriminated against based upon a disability resulting from a work-related injury may sue her employer under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. We find that such suit is permissible, and we reverse.

The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, are set out in the complaint as follows. Appellant was employed by Appellee at its facility in Fort Smith beginning in September 1993. In October 1993 and also in April 1994, Appellant sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which was caused by the rapid and repetitive motion in Appellant's work-related environment. Appellant's injuries were accepted as compensable, and she completed her rights under the workers' compensation laws by joint petition filed with the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission on November 28, 1995. After her injuries were accepted as compensable, Appellant was placed under active treatment from two physicians and underwent epineurolysis and decompression for her injuries in both March and May 1995. During the time she was under active treatment, Appellant continued working for Appellee and was able to perform the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodations, under limited duties or restrictions. Specifically, in a status report dated June 21, 1995, Appellant was instructed by her primary physician to wear a splint, sling, or brace and was restricted from performing any repetitive motion and any gripping, pulling, pushing, or lifting of items weighing in excess of zero pounds for a period of four weeks. Similarly, Appellant was advised by Dr. Kenneth Rosenzweig on that same date as follows:

I would like for her to continue her rehab[ilitation] efforts and try some light duty job if available--that should be with her padded gloves on, no excessive pressure in the palm of her hand, and avoiding any heavy gripping, pushing, pulling and/or repetition for at least another month and at that time, things should be well enough to go back to her regular job. This should be on a trial basis and if she is unable to tolerate it despite surgical repair, then she may be forced to do something less intensive.

Two months later, on August 22, 1995, Appellant was given a full and complete release from treatment and rehabilitation by both physicians, with noted permanent restrictions. Particularly, Appellant was advised to refrain from any repetitive motion of any activity seventy-one degrees, to continue restrictive activities, and to pursue job rotation to avoid any overuse in any one particular mode. Appellant was assigned a rating of five percent permanent physical impairment in each upper extremity. On that same date, after having obtained her release from treatment, Appellant reported to work, where she was immediately terminated from employment by Appellee.

As a result of her termination, Appellant brought an action against Appellee for discrimination based upon a physical disability, in violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Appellant asserted in her complaint that Appellee terminated her despite the fact that she had been previously performing the essential functions of her job and despite the fact that her permanent impairments were less restrictive and less severe than those initially indicated by her treating physicians. Appellant claimed damages in the form of lost wages, mental anguish, and loss of dignity. She also asked for punitive damages in the amount of $200,000.

Appellee filed a motion to dismiss Appellant's complaint on the ground that exclusive jurisdiction of her claim was clearly vested in the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission, specifically pursuant to section 11-9-505(a)(1). After hearing argument from both sides, the trial court dismissed with prejudice Appellant's complaint, reasoning that it was the General Assembly's intent that the remedies provided under the Workers' Compensation Act were to be exclusive.

On appeal, Appellant argues that her claim is cognizable under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. She contends that workers who are discriminated against because of a disability from a work-related injury are not entitled to less protection under the law than are workers who are disabled by other means. She contends further that the Workers' Compensation Act was never intended to be a vehicle for protecting a worker's civil rights, and that the damages available under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act are more complete than those offered under the Workers' Compensation Act. In support of her argument, Appellant relies on this court's holding in Malone v. Trans-States Lines, Inc., 325 Ark. 383, 926 S.W.2d 659 (1996).

In Malone, the appellant had filed a complaint in circuit court against his employer for retaliatory discharge under the Workers' Compensation Act and for discrimination in violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. There, as in the present case, the appellant argued that his civil rights claim was cognizable in circuit court and that the trial court had thus erred in dismissing with prejudice his complaint for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. This court did not directly address the merits of that argument, but nonetheless held that the complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice, to allow the appellant to amend his complaint to include the specific facts, as opposed to bare conclusions of law, in support of his claim. This court stated:

While we are somewhat sympathetic to appellant's contention that he has asserted two distinct causes of action based on two distinct statutes, on this limited record we cannot fully discuss the merits of appellant's arguments for reversal of the trial court's rulings regarding subject-matter jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that because appellant has asserted a cause of action in circuit court based in part on the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993, we reverse that part of the order dismissing the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Id. at 386-87, 926 S.W.2d at 662 (emphasis added). It is this language that Appellant relies on in support of her assertion that her claim is actionable in circuit court. Additionally, Appellant points to a concurring opinion in Malone. It was stated unequivocally that the exclusive-remedy doctrine of the Workers' Compensation Act "in no way conflicts with or bars a properly established or alleged claim under the Civil Rights Act." Id. at 387-88, 926 S.W.2d at 662.

Appellee, on the other hand, asserts that Appellant's claim is limited to the remedy provided under section 11-9-505, which addresses an employee's rights when the employer refuses to return the injured employee to work. Appellee asserts further that while the Arkansas Civil Rights Act generally addresses the rights of disabled persons to obtain and hold employment, the Workers' Compensation Act specifically addresses the rights of employees who were injured on the job to return to work. Accordingly, Appellee asserts that the specific remedies provided in the Workers' Compensation Act must prevail over the general remedies available under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act.

In response to Appellee's argument, Appellant contends that the issue in this case is not that Appellee refused to return her to work after her injury; rather, she contends that the action filed in circuit court under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act is a separate and distinct cause of action based upon Appellee's decision to terminate her because of her physical disability. Appellant contends that this is not a case of Appellee's refusal to return her to work, because she had been allowed to return to work after her injuries, during the time she was receiving physical rehabilitation and was under medical restrictions.

The initial question then is whether this case is one of discrimination on the part of the employer in terminating an employee based upon her disability or, rather, whether it is one of the employer's refusal to return the employee to work after having suffered a work-related injury. Should we determine that this case presents an issue of employer discrimination, we must next determine whether there is an adequate remedy for such discrimination available to Appellant under the Workers' Compensation Act. If, on the other hand, we should determine that this case concerns the employer's refusal to return the injured employee to work, we should affirm the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of Appellant's complaint, as her exclusive remedy would be found in section 11-9-505 of the Act. For the reasons set out below, we conclude that this case presents an issue of employer discrimination, rather than a situation where the employer has refused to return the injured employee to work.

Section 16-123-107(a) of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 provides in pertinent part:

The right of an...