Can My Employer Fire Me After I File a Workers Compensation Claim in Alabama?

Can My Employer Fire Me After I File a Workers Compensation Claim in Alabama?

One of the most common fears injured workers have is also one of the most understandable: If I report my injury or file for workers’ compensation benefits, can my employer fire me?

In Alabama, the answer requires an important distinction.

Your employer can fire you after you suffer a job injury. Alabama generally follows the employment-at-will rule, meaning an employer may terminate an employee for many reasons—or ordinarily for no reason at all-but an employer cannot legally fire you solely because you sought workers’ compensation benefits.

That protection is found in Ala. Code § 25-5-11.1, Alabama’s retaliatory discharge statute.

Understanding the difference between a lawful termination and an unlawful retaliatory discharge is important because employers almost never admit that workers’ compensation was the real reason an injured employee lost his or her job.

Alabama Is an Employment-at-Will State

The starting point is Alabama’s employment-at-will rule.  The Alabama Supreme Court explained in Culbreth v. Woodham Plumbing Co., 599 So. 2d 1121 (Ala. 1992), that an at-will employment relationship generally can be terminated “for a good reason, a wrong reason, or no reason at all.”

That is a broad rule.

It also means suffering a workplace injury does not give an Alabama employee absolute job protection.

An employer can still terminate an injured employee for a legitimate reason. Depending upon the facts, that could include misconduct, violation of a legitimate company policy, poor performance, insubordination, or a genuine reduction in force.  Workers’ compensation does not give an injured employee total immunity from the ordinary rules of the workplace.

There is, however, one very important exception.

Alabama Law Prohibits Retaliatory Discharge for Seeking Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Alabama Code § 25-5-11.1 provides, in pertinent part, that an employee cannot be terminated “solely because” the employee instituted or maintained an action to recover workers’ compensation benefits.

That statutory protection is important to Alabama’s entire workers’ compensation system.  Consider what would happen without it.

If an employer were free to fire workers simply because they sought workers’ compensation benefits, other employees would quickly get the message. An injured employee might decide not to report an accident, seek medical treatment, or pursue benefits because doing so could cost the employee his or her livelihood.

Recommended Reading: Can I Use My Own Insurance To Receive Medical Treatment?

Alabama courts have recognized the importance of preventing that result.  In fact, the Alabama Supreme Court has used unusually strong language on this subject. In White v. Midtown Restaurant Corp., 632 So. 2d 1330, 1333 (Ala. 1994), the Court stated that retaliation of any kind against employees pursuing workers’ compensation benefits is “deplorable.”

That is a striking word for an appellate court to use.

It reflects an important principle behind Alabama’s retaliatory discharge law: workers should be able to pursue the workers’ compensation benefits provided by law without fear that doing so will cost them their jobs.

In a later article in this series, we will look more closely at why Alabama created this exception to employment at will and why the courts have emphasized protecting an injured employee’s ability to pursue workers’ compensation benefits.

Being Fired After a Work Injury Does Not Automatically Prove Retaliation

This is equally important.

Suppose an employee works for a company for ten years, suffers a shoulder injury at work, reports the injury, and is fired three weeks later.

Is that retaliatory discharge?

Maybe. But those facts alone do not necessarily prove it.

The employer may contend that the employee was terminated for an entirely different reason.

For example:

• attendance problems;
• violation of company policy;
• in accordance with company policy;
• poor performance;
• insubordination;
• job abandonment; or
• a legitimate reduction in force.

The fact that the termination occurred after the workers’ compensation claim is certainly something we would want to investigate. But Alabama law requires a connection between the workers’ compensation claim and the termination.

That brings us to the most difficult issue in many retaliatory discharge cases:

Why was the employee really fired?

What Does “Solely” Because of Workers’ Compensation Really Mean?

At first glance, the word “solely” in § 25-5-11.1 appears to create an enormous hurdle for an injured worker.  An employer might seemingly avoid liability simply by saying: We didn’t fire her because she filed workers’ compensation. We fired her because she violated our attendance policy.

Fortunately, the analysis does not end simply because an employer gives another reason.

In Twilley v. Daubert Coated Products, Inc., 536 So. 2d 1364 (Ala. 1988), the Alabama Supreme Court established an important burden-shifting framework for these cases.  An employee may establish a prima facie case by showing that the employee was terminated because he or she sought workers’ compensation benefits. The employer may then offer evidence that the employee was terminated for a legitimate reason. The employee then has an opportunity to show that the employer’s stated reason was not the real reason, but instead a pretext for an impermissible termination.

Although “solely” makes these claims appear particularly difficult, understanding the burden-shifting framework and the factual nuances can completely change the evaluation of a case.

We will devote an entire article in this series to what “solely” actually means because it is one of the most misunderstood parts of Alabama retaliatory discharge law.

Recommended Reading: What Does “Solely” Really Mean in an Alabama Retaliatory Discharge Case?

How Can an Injured Worker Prove the Employer’s Real Reason?

Usually, there is no smoking gun.  An employer rarely writes: We are firing John because he filed a workers’ compensation claim.

Instead, retaliatory discharge cases are frequently proven through circumstantial evidence.

That makes Alabama Power Co. v. Aldridge, 854 So. 2d 554 (Ala. 2002), one of the most important cases for understanding Alabama retaliatory discharge law.

In Aldridge, the Alabama Supreme Court discussed circumstances that may provide evidence of a causal connection between a workers’ compensation claim and a subsequent termination. They include:

1. Knowledge of the workers’ compensation claim by the people making the termination decision;
2. Expression of a negative attitude toward the employee’s injured condition;
3. Failure to follow established company policy;
4. Discriminatory treatment compared with similarly situated employees;
5. Sudden changes in the employee’s work-performance evaluations after the workers’ compensation claim; and
6. Evidence that the employer’s stated reason for termination was false.

Courts have also recognized that the proximity in time between the workers’ compensation claim and the termination can be persuasive evidence of a causal connection. See Aldridge, 854 So. 2d at 565; Flint Construction Co. v. Hall, 904 So. 2d 239, 248 (Ala. 2004).

Those factors are so important that we are going to devote the next part of this series to explaining how they work in real cases.

Recommended Reading: The Aldridge Factors: How Alabama Workers Prove Retaliatory Discharge Without a Smoking Gun

Consider How the Evidence Might Fit Together

Assume an employee has worked for the same employer for eight years and has no significant disciplinary history, then she suffers an on-the-job injury.  Management knows about the injury and the workers’ compensation claim. Her supervisor begins complaining about her medical appointments. Shortly afterward, she begins receiving disciplinary write-ups for conduct that previously went unpunished.

Several weeks later, she is fired for violating the company’s attendance policy.

There still may be no document saying: We fired her because of workers’ compensation, but now consider the questions suggested by Aldridge.

Did the decision-makers know about the claim?

Did management express a negative attitude toward the injury?

Did the company follow its normal attendance policy?

How did the employer treat other employees with similar attendance records who had not filed workers’ compensation claims?

Did this employee suddenly become a “bad employee” only after suffering the injury?

Is the employer’s stated reason for termination actually supported by its records?

And how soon after the workers’ compensation claim did the termination occur?

One fact standing alone may prove very little, but several facts considered together may tell an entirely different story.

That is one reason retaliatory discharge cases are so fact intensive.

An Employer’s Own Policies Can Become Important Evidence

In our experience litigating these cases, employee handbooks, attendance policies, disciplinary procedures, and the employer’s own records can become extremely important.  It is not enough to ask: What does the company policy say?

We also want to know: How did the company actually apply it?

Was the policy consistently enforced?

Were exceptions routinely made?

Did supervisors have discretion?

Were employees who had not filed workers’ compensation claims treated differently?

Did the employer follow every step required by its own disciplinary procedure?

Did the interpretation of a longstanding rule suddenly change after this particular employee got hurt?

This is not simply litigation strategy. Failure to follow established company policy and discriminatory treatment of similarly situated employees are expressly among the factors identified in Aldridge.

Sometimes a company policy that initially appears to provide the employer with a strong defense becomes important evidence for the employee once we learn how that policy was actually applied.

The Employer’s Stated Reason Is Often Where the Case Is Won or Lost

This leads to another important concept: pretext.

The employer says: We fired him for attendance.

The inquiry should not necessarily end there.

Did the employee actually violate the attendance policy?

Were the absences related to authorized medical treatment?

Did the employer correctly calculate the attendance points?

Did the company follow its own policy?

Were other employees with comparable attendance records fired?

Has the employer consistently given the same explanation for the termination?

Does the documentary evidence support that explanation?

These questions can help determine whether the employer has identified the true reason for the termination—or merely a reason that sounds legitimate.  In many cases the central question eventually becomes whether the employer’s stated reason for dismissal was legitimate or pretextual.

Recommended Reading: What Is Pretext in an Alabama Retaliatory Discharge Case?

What We Have Learned From Handling Retaliatory Discharge Cases

One of the most important lessons we have learned is: Do not expect a smoking gun.

Some of the most significant evidence can initially appear unimportant:

A supervisor’s comment.

An attendance point.

A policy that was not followed.

A longtime good employee who suddenly starts receiving write-ups.

Another employee who committed the same violation but kept his job.

An explanation in a deposition that does not match the company records.

A stated reason for termination that changes as the litigation progresses.

Each fact by itself may have an innocent explanation, but retaliatory discharge cases often require looking at the whole picture.  That is precisely why the circumstantial-evidence framework discussed in Aldridge is so useful. It provides a way of examining seemingly disconnected facts and asking the ultimate question: Why was this employee really fired?

What Should I Do If I Am Fired After Filing an Alabama Workers’ Compensation Claim?

Preserve the evidence you have.

Keep your termination paperwork, employee handbook, attendance records, disciplinary notices, work restrictions, workers’ compensation documents, emails, text messages, and communications with supervisors or human resources.

If an important conversation occurs, make a note of what was said, who said it, when it occurred, and who else heard it while your memory is still fresh.

Do not assume that being fired shortly after reporting an injury automatically establishes retaliatory discharge, but neither should you assume that the reason printed on a termination notice necessarily answers the question.

The surrounding facts matter.

And under Alabama law, those surrounding facts may determine whether an employee was lawfully terminated—or was instead fired for exercising the right to seek workers’ compensation benefits.

Recommended Reading Throughout This Series

As we continue our series on Alabama retaliatory discharge claims, we will examine:

• Why Does Alabama Protect Injured Workers From Retaliatory Discharge?
• What Does “Solely” Really Mean Under Alabama’s Retaliatory Discharge Law?
• The Aldridge Factors: How Alabama Workers Prove Retaliatory Discharge Without a Smoking Gun
• What Is Pretext in an Alabama Retaliatory Discharge Case?
• Can Your Employer Fire You for Attendance Problems After a Work Injury?
• Why Timing Matters in an Alabama Retaliatory Discharge Claim
• What Damages Can You Recover for Retaliatory Discharge?
• Can You Be Permanently and Totally Disabled and Still Win a Retaliatory Discharge Case?

If you have suffered a job injury and you have questions about your rights and benefits under Alabama’s workers compensation laws -don’t hesitate to contact and speak with one of the experienced Alabama Workers Compensation and Social Security Disability attorneys at Powell and Denny today for a free consultation. Appointments are available in person, or virtually via Zoom if more convenient.  Powell and Denny would appreciate the opportunity to help.  And remember, there is no fee unless you win.

Powell and Denny: We Work When You Can’t