Stephens v. Justiss-Mears Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 11 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 4647,JUSTISS-MEARS,4647 |
| Citation | 300 So.2d 510 |
| Parties | Bernard STEPHENS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.OIL COMPANY, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Wm. Henry Sanders, Jena, for plaintiff and appellant.
Gaharan & Richey, by Leonard W. Richey, Jena, for defendant and appellee.
Before FRUGE , CULPEPPER and WATSON, JJ.
This is a tort action. Plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, Justiss-Mears Oil Company. He contends defendant wrongfully discharged him in a retaliation for filing a workmen's compensation suit. On an exception of no cause of action, the district judge dismissed plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff appealed.
Plaintiff's petitions and attached documents show the following facts: In January of 1973, plaintiff was injured while working as a laborer for the defendant, Jutiss-Mears. On February 7, 1973, plaintiff filed suit against Justiss-Mears for workmen's compensation benefits for total and permanent disability. While his compensation suit was still pending, plaintiff applied to return to work for defendant. On furnishing the required medical forms, he started working for defendant on November 22, 1973. After working one-half day, plaintiff was discharged because of the pending compensation suit.
Plaintiff alleges that his discharge by defendant in retaliation for the pending suit for workmen's compensation benefits is against public policy of this state, as established in our workmen's compensation act. In particular, plaintiff relies on LSA-R.S. 23:1033 which reads as follows:
'No contract, rule, regulation or device whatsoever shall operate to relieve the employer, in whole or in part, from any liability created by this Chapter except as herein provided.'
Plaintiff contends his retaliatory discharge is a 'device', within the meaning of the quoted statute, to relieve the employer from liability for workmen$'s compensation. As such, plaintiff alleges his discharge is wrongful and actionable. He seeks damages in the total sum of $60,000.
Plaintiff relies on Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Company, 297 N .E.2d 425 (Ind.1973). In that case, plaintiff alleged she was injured while working for the defendant and was paid workmen's compensation benefits for four months. She returned to work for defendant, but was unaware she had a claim for additional benefits. She worked for approximately 19 months before filing a claim for additional benefits for 30% Loss in the use of her arm. Defendant settled the claim, but about one month later discharged plaintiff from her employment without giving a reason. Plaintiff then filed a tort action for damages, alleging her retaliatory discharge was wrongful as against public policy.
In Frampton, the Indiana Supreme Court states there are no other reported cases recognizing such a cause of action. Nevertheless, the court held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malhotra v. Cotter & Co.
...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); Stephens v. Justiss-Mears Oil Co., 300 So.2d 510 (La.App.1974); Narens v. Campbell Sixty-Six Express, Inc., 347 S.W.2d 204 (Mo.1961). I would note that several (if not all) of t......
-
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 90SC583
...suggested in dicta that a public policy exception to employment at will might exist under certain circumstances); Stephens v. Justiss-Mears Oil Co., 300 So.2d 510 (La.App.1974) (worker's compensation case in which Louisiana court denied relief by distinguishing the Frampton case, but did no......
-
Scholtes v. Signal Delivery Service, Inc.
...23 Ill.Dec. 559, 384 N.E.2d 353 (1979); Frampton v. Central Ind. Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E. 425 (1973); Stephens v. Justiss-Mears Oil Co., 300 So.2d 510 (La.App. 1974); Fortune v. National Cash Register Co., 373 Mass. 96, 364 N.E.2d 1251 (1977); Sventko v. Kroger Co., 69 Mich.App. 644,......
-
Savodnik v. Korvettes, Inc.
...(S.Ct.Idaho 1977) (Idaho); Abrisz v. Pulley Freight Lines, Inc., 270 N.W.2d 454 (S.Ct.Iowa 1978) (Iowa); Stephens v. Justiss-Mears Oil Co., 300 So.2d 510 (Ct.Apls.La.1974) (Louisiana); and Chin v. American Telephone & Telegraph, 96 Misc.2d 1070, 410 N.Y.S.2d 737 (N.Y.Co.1978) (New 4 Again w......