Can My Employer Fire Me for Refusing Light-Duty Work After an Alabama Workers’ Compensation Injury?

Can My Employer Fire Me for Refusing Light-Duty Work After an Alabama Workers’ Compensation Injury?

After a workplace injury, an employee may receive restrictions from the authorized treating physician that prevent a return to the regular job.  The employer may then say “We have light-duty work available. Come back to work.”

What happens if the injured employee believes the job exceeds the doctor’s restrictions, cannot physically perform it, or refuses to return?  Can the employer fire the employee?

And if it does, can the employee still have a claim for retaliatory discharge?

The answer depends heavily on the facts—including what job was actually offered and whether it was truly suitable for the injured employee.

Alabama Law Addresses the Refusal of Suitable Employment

Alabama’s Workers’ Compensation Act specifically addresses an injured employee’s refusal of suitable employment.

Ala. Code § 25-5-57(a)(3)e. provides that when an injured employee refuses employment suitable to his or her capacity that has been offered or procured, the employee generally is not entitled to compensation during the period of the refusal unless the circuit court finds the refusal justifiable.

The important words are “suitable to his or her capacity.”

An employer cannot necessarily avoid its workers’ compensation obligations merely by telling an injured employee that some type of “light duty” is available.  The actual job matters.

What Makes a Light-Duty Job “Suitable”?

Whether work is suitable can depend upon the particular employee and the particular job.  Important questions to consider may include:

• What are the employee’s current medical restrictions?
• What are the actual physical requirements of the proposed job?
• Does the job require lifting, standing, walking, bending, climbing, reaching, or other activities prohibited by the treating physician?
• Has the employer provided a definite job with identifiable duties, rather than simply saying, “Come back and we’ll find something for you to do”?
• Has the authorized treating physician reviewed or approved the proposed duties?
• Is there a legitimate reason the employee cannot perform the offered work?

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has recognized that whether offered employment is actually “suitable” can itself present a factual question. See Avondale Mills, Inc. v. Weldon, 680 So. 2d 364 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).

What Can We Learn From Avondale Mills v. Weldon?

Avondale Mills, Inc. v. Weldon, 680 So. 2d 364 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996), provides a good example of why the particular job offered to an injured worker matters.

Weldon had worked for Avondale Mills for more than 20 years and developed serious respiratory problems. His physician concluded that exposure to cotton dust aggravated his condition and instructed that he should no longer work around cotton dust. The physician also imposed significant permanent restrictions, including limitations on manual labor and exposure to dust, fumes, extreme temperatures and other respiratory irritants.

Avondale discussed a groundskeeping position with Weldon and later offered him a security-officer position. The evidence concerning those jobs was important. Weldon testified that he could not physically perform the groundskeeping work on a sustained basis, and his physician agreed that he could not perform those duties. Weldon declined the security position for a different reason—he had already applied for Social Security benefits.

Was Weldon’s Refusal of the Jobs Enough to Stop His Workers’ Compensation Benefits?

Avondale argued that it was.

The employer relied upon Ala. Code §25-5-57(a)(3)e., which provides for the suspension of compensation when an injured employee refuses employment “suitable to his or her capacity” but the Court of Civil Appeals did not accept the proposition that merely offering Weldon another job automatically ended his right to compensation.

Instead, the Court noted that there was conflicting evidence about whether the jobs offered to Weldon were actually suitable to his capacity. Because of that conflicting evidence, the Court refused to overturn the trial court’s workers’ compensation award.

That is an important lesson for injured Alabama workers: The fact that an employer calls a job “light duty” or says that another job is available does not necessarily mean the job is suitable for that particular employee.

The employee’s actual medical restrictions and the actual duties of the proposed job matter.

But Weldon Lost His Retaliatory Discharge Claim

There is another side of Weldon that is particularly important for this blog.

Although Weldon prevailed on the workers’ compensation issue, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the retaliatory discharge award.

Why?

The Court concluded that Weldon had not presented substantial evidence that Avondale actually terminated him. Although his medical condition prevented him from continuing in certain areas of the mill, Avondale had offered him other positions and he had refused those offers. The Court also rejected his argument that he had been constructively discharged because there was no substantial evidence that Avondale deliberately made his working conditions so intolerable that he was forced to resign.

This illustrates an important distinction:

Winning the workers’ compensation argument over whether offered employment was “suitable” does not automatically establish a retaliatory discharge claim.

The two issues are different.

For workers’ compensation benefits, the question may be whether the offered job was suitable to the employee’s physical capacity.

For retaliatory discharge, the employee must still establish the elements of the separate claim—including that the employer terminated the employee because he or she pursued workers’ compensation benefits.

That is one reason an injured worker should be extremely careful about simply refusing an employer’s return-to-work offer. The circumstances surrounding that refusal can later become important in both the workers’ compensation case and any potential retaliatory discharge claim.

Can Refusing Light Duty Affect My Workers’ Compensation Benefits?

Yes.

An unjustified refusal of genuinely suitable employment can have serious consequences for an injured worker’s compensation benefits, but the statute also expressly recognizes that a refusal may be justifiable.  That is why an injured employee should be very careful before simply refusing an employer’s return-to-work offer.

If the proposed job appears to violate the doctor’s restrictions, the better course is generally to document the problem and obtain clarification from the authorized treating physician rather than simply failing to report for work.

Recommended Reading: Can My Employer Fire Me for Attendance Problems After a Workers’ Compensation Injury in Alabama? discusses why attendance and failure-to-report issues following a job injury can become important in a later retaliatory discharge claim.

Does Refusing Light Duty Automatically Defeat a Retaliatory Discharge Claim?

No.  This is where two different legal issues have to be kept separate.

An employer may argue “We didn’t fire the employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim. We fired the employee because we offered light-duty work and the employee refused to return.”

That could be a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for termination, but, as with other reasons given for firing an injured employee, the facts surrounding that explanation still matter.

For example:

Was there actually a specific light-duty job available?

Did it comply with the employee’s restrictions?

Was the employee physically capable of performing it?

Did the employer know that the proposed duties conflicted with the doctor’s restrictions?

Did the employer follow its normal policies?

Were other employees treated differently?

Did the employer accurately describe the circumstances when it later explained why the employee was fired?

Those facts may help determine whether the employee genuinely refused suitable work—or whether “refusal of light duty” became the employer’s stated reason for a termination actually motivated by the workers’ compensation claim.

Recommended Reading: What Is Pretext in an Alabama Retaliatory Discharge Case? explains how Alabama courts examine whether the employer’s stated reason for firing an injured employee was the real reason.

What If the Employee Is Still Under Severe Restrictions?

The more restrictive the employee’s medical limitations, the more important it may be to determine whether suitable employment actually exists.

In Fab Arc Steel Supply, Inc. v. Dodd, 168 So. 3d 1244 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015), the employer argued that an employee had effectively refused suitable employment through conduct that resulted in termination of his light-duty position. The court upheld the trial court’s finding that the employer’s explanation for the termination lacked merit. It also noted the absence of evidence showing regular employment within the employee’s vocational profile that he could secure and perform while recovering from his injury.

The lesson is not that an injured employee may simply refuse to work.  Rather: “You refused light duty” and “you refused suitable employment” are not necessarily the same thing.

A Special Rule for Permanent Total Disability

There is also an important technical distinction when permanent total disability is involved.

Section 25-5-57(a)(3)e. appears within Alabama’s provisions governing permanent partial disability. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals explained in Clear Creek Transportation, Inc. v. Peebles, 911 So. 2d 1059 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004), that the “suitable employment” provision does not operate in the same manner for an employee determined to be permanently and totally disabled.

What Did the Court Decide in Clear Creek Transportation v. Peebles?

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals’ decision in Clear Creek Transportation, Inc. v. Peebles, 911 So. 2d 1059 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004), helps explain why the words “suitable employment,” “vocational rehabilitation,” and “reasonable accommodation” should not simply be treated as interchangeable.

Mr. Peebles was a delivery-truck driver who suffered serious injuries to his neck, shoulder and rib cage after falling inside a trailer. After treatment, surgery and a functional capacities evaluation, his employers attempted to identify other jobs they believed he could perform. The employers argued that his failure to pursue those jobs should prevent him from being considered permanently and totally disabled.

The Court rejected that argument.

One important reason was that Alabama’s Workers’ Compensation Act treats permanent partial disability and permanent total disability differently.

Section 25-5-57(a)(3)e. applies to permanent partial disability and addresses the refusal of employment “suitable” to the employee’s capacity. If an employee unjustifiably refuses genuinely suitable employment, compensation can be suspended during the period of that refusal.

But Clear Creek held that this particular provision does not apply to an employee who is permanently and totally disabled. The Court explained that §25-5-57(a)(3)e. appears in the portion of the Act governing permanent partial disability and presupposes that the employee retains the capacity to perform some suitable employment.

For a worker claiming permanent total disability, a different provision applies. Section 25-5-57(a)(4)d. provides that an employee who refuses physical or vocational rehabilitation or refuses to accept a reasonable accommodation cannot be deemed permanently and totally disabled under the circumstances covered by that provision.

Finding a Job Is Not Necessarily Vocational Rehabilitation

This is probably the most useful part of Clear Creek for an injured worker.  The employers had located jobs they contended Mr. Peebles could perform and essentially argued that his failure to pursue those jobs amounted to refusing vocational rehabilitation.

The Court disagreed. It explained that merely locating jobs that supposedly correspond with an injured employee’s post-MMI abilities does not, by itself, increase or restore the employee’s capacity to work. Evidence that jobs actually exist which the employee can perform may be relevant to whether the employee is really permanently and totally disabled in the first place—but simply identifying jobs does not automatically turn those jobs into “vocational rehabilitation.”

That distinction matters.

An employer cannot necessarily establish that an injured employee improperly refused rehabilitation merely by saying “We found some jobs you could do.”

The court still has to look at what was actually offered, what the employee is physically and vocationally capable of doing, and which provision of Alabama’s Workers’ Compensation Act actually applies.

Why Does Clear Creek Matter in a Retaliatory Discharge Case?

Clear Creek itself is a workers’ compensation case, not a retaliatory discharge case. But the distinction it draws can become important when an employer later says an injured worker was fired because he or she “refused work.”

Those words do not necessarily tell the whole story.

Was an actual job offered? Was it within the employee’s medical restrictions? Was the employee capable of performing it? Was the employer offering a reasonable accommodation? Or had someone merely identified jobs that supposedly existed?

Those facts may become very important if the employer later relies upon an alleged “refusal to work” as its legitimate reason for terminating an employee who was pursuing workers’ compensation benefits.

The label the employer places on the situation does not necessarily determine the legal result.

Recommended Reading: Can You Be Permanently and Totally Disabled and Still Win an Alabama Retaliatory Discharge Case? discusses why permanent total disability and a retaliatory discharge claim are not necessarily inconsistent.

What Should an Injured Worker Do When Offered Light Duty?

An injured employee should not casually ignore or refuse a return-to-work offer.  Instead, the employee should understand:

1. exactly what job is being offered;
2. the physical duties required;
3. the current restrictions imposed by the authorized treating physician; and
4. whether the proposed job actually falls within those restrictions.

If there is a disagreement, getting the issue documented and obtaining clarification from the treating physician can be extremely important.

A simple verbal exchange—“Come back to work” / “I can’t”—can later become a major issue in both the workers’ compensation case and a retaliatory discharge claim.

The Bottom Line

An Alabama employer may have legitimate grounds to take action when an injured employee refuses work that is genuinely suitable and within the employee’s medical restrictions.  But merely labeling a position “light duty” does not automatically establish that the employee was capable of performing it.

When a termination follows a disputed return-to-work offer, the actual job duties, medical restrictions, communications between the parties, company policies, and employer’s stated reason for termination can all become important.

If you suffered an Alabama job injury and were fired after a dispute over light-duty work or returning under medical restrictions, don’t assume that the employer’s characterization of the situation necessarily determines your rights.

If you have suffered a job injury, were subsequently fired 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