Green v. Amerada-Hess Corp.

Decision Date21 February 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-2927,AMERADA-HESS,79-2927
Citation612 F.2d 212
Parties115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4986 David R. GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. *
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Butler & Brown, James M. Brown, William C. Butler, Guy M. Walker, Laurel, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.

Brunini, Gratham, Grower & Hewes, Edmund L. Brunini, Jr., John E. Milner, Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Before AINSWORTH, FAY and RANDALL, Circuit Judges.

AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge:

Appellant David R. Green brought a Mississippi diversity suit against appellee Amerada Hess Corporation claiming that he was wrongfully discharged from his job for pursuing his rights under Mississippi's workmen's compensation statute. The district court granted Amerada Hess' motion for summary judgment on the ground that appellant's claim did not state a valid cause of action under Mississippi law. On appeal, appellant Green argues that such a wrongful discharge raises a cognizable claim. Disagreeing with appellant's contention, we affirm the decision of the district court.

The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. Appellant was first employed by Amerada Hess on January 1, 1972. He did not have a written contract of employment, but was hired for an indefinite period of time. On April 15, 1973, while in the employ of Amerada Hess, appellant Green sustained an injury as the result of an employment-related accident. Green filed an accident report the next day, but continued working until April 9, 1974 at which time he entered the hospital for diagnostic tests. After a one-week hiatus, appellant returned to work until October 1974 when he was hospitalized for back surgery. After recuperating, he resumed his employment in December 1974. On July 24, 1975, Green was dismissed allegedly in retaliation for seeking to pursue his rights to workmen's compensation. 1

Unlike other state statutes which explicitly provide for a civil action for a retaliatory discharge, See Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c (Vernon Cum.Supp.1978), the Mississippi statute does not so provide. Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Law, Miss.Code Ann. § 71-3-1 Et seq. (1972). Moreover, Mississippi courts have not specifically decided the question whether an employer may be liable in damages for discharging an employee for pursuing his workmen's compensation rights. In the absence of controlling precedent, we must nonetheless decide this issue as we believe a Mississippi court would decide it. Loucks v. Star City Glass Co., 551 F.2d 745, 746 (7th Cir. 1977). In this regard, special weight must be given to the determination of the district court judge who is familiar with local law. See Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Company of America, 350 U.S. 198, 204, 76 S.Ct. 273, 277, 100 L.Ed. 199 (1956). As found by the district court, an employer under Mississippi law has the legal right to discharge employees employed for an indefinite term without any justification. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Skinner, 200 Miss. 44, 25 So.2d 572, 576 (1946); Rape v. Mobile & Ohio R.R. Co., 136 Miss. 38, 100 So. 585 (1924). It is clear that the terminable at will rule which Mississippi follows is directly relevant to the resolution of the issue on appeal. Loucks, supra, 551 F.2d at 747. While the harshness of the terminable at will rule is subject to exception in light of express legislative action, the absence of explicit statutory provision of a civil remedy in the Mississippi workmen's compensation statute argues against recognizing a cause of action for retaliatory discharge. Loucks, supra, 551 F.2d at 747-49. 2

Appellant argues that even though Mississippi courts have not yet recognized a cause of action for retaliatory discharge, it is likely that they will do so when faced with an appropriate case in light of recent precedents from other jurisdictions finding such a cause of action. We decline this invitation to create law for Mississippi given the conflicting nature of existing precedents. Compare Martin v. Tapley, 360 So.2d 708 (Ala.1978) (refusing to recognize cause of action for retaliatory discharge); Dockery v. Lampart Table Co., 36 N.C.App. 293, 244 S.E.2d 272, Cert. denied, 295 N.C. 465, 246 S.E.2d 215 (1978) (same); Segal v. Arrow Industries Corp., 364 So.2d 89 (Fla.App.1978) (same) With Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172, 23 Ill.Dec. 559, 384 N.E.2d 353 (1979) (recognizing a cause of action for retaliatory discharge); Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or. 597, 588 P.2d 1087 (1978) (same); Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425 (1973) (same); Sventko v. Kroger Co., 69 Mich.App. 644, 245 N.W.2d 151 (1976). 3 As stated in Loucks, "it is not our province as a federal appellate court to fashion for (a state) w...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • McLinn, Matter of
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 7, 1984
    ...in this regard, special weight was to be given to determination of district court judge who was familiar with local law.--Green v. Amerada-Hess Corp., 612 F.2d 212, rehearing denied 614 F.2d 1298, certiorari denied 101 S.Ct. 356, 449 U.S. 952, 66 L.Ed.2d C.A.Miss. 1978. When state decisiona......
  • Cason v. Texaco, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • November 7, 1985
    ...believes the Louisiana Supreme Court would be likely to develop in the future if it was confronted with this issue. Green v. Amerada-Hess Corp., 612 F.2d 212 (5th Cir.1980), rehearing denied 614 F.2d 1298 and cert. denied, 449 U.S. 952, 101 S.Ct. 356, 66 L.Ed.2d 216 (1980). Based upon a rev......
  • Peabody Galion v. Dollar
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • December 11, 1981
    ...consideration of those implied causes of action has focused upon applicability rather than preemption. See, e.g., Green v. Amerada-Hess Corp., 612 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1980) (no cause of action for retaliatory discharge to be found in Mississippi law; distinguishes states that provide by stat......
  • Smith v. Atlas Off-Shore Boat Service, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • August 21, 1981
    ...F.2d 1244 (8th Cir. 1980), as well as termination due to the employee's filing of a workman's compensation claim, 4 Green v. Amerada-Hess Corp., 612 F.2d 212 (5th Cir.) (applying Mississippi law), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 356, 66 L.Ed.2d 216 This employer latitude is said to b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Appellate Review of Unclear State Law in the Ninth Circuit After in Re Mclinn
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 9-02, December 1985
    • Invalid date
    ...state statute, court of appeals will defer to district judge who is familiar with the laws of the state); Green v. Amerada-Hess Corp., 612 F.2d 212, 214 (5th Cir. 1980) (special weight afforded the determination of the district judge who is familiar with local law); Filley v. Kickoff Publis......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT