Disability Law

Fifth DCA: Evidence Was Sufficient to Go to the Jury in Retaliatory Discharge Claim

By David A. McCranie, Esq.

Pamela Andrews was injured on the job and was later fired.  Believing that her employer, Direct Mail Express, had fired her in retaliation for pursuing her workers' compensation claim, she filed suit against them under §440.205.  The case went to trial, but before it was submitted to the jury for deliberation, Direct Mail filed a motion for a directed verdict.  They contended that the there was no evidence that Andrews had been fired because of her workers' compensation claim, and the trial court agreed.  Thus, judgment was entered in favor of Direct Mail Express, and the jury was not allowed to decide the case.

But on appeal, the Fifth District reversed and remanded for a new trial.  The court noted that the evidence showed the following: 

• She [Andrews] sustained a fall at DME caused by a broken curb in the vicinity of DME's outside break area. She subsequently filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits. She was terminated from her employment approximately seven weeks later, after a number of incidents which she contended were retaliation for filing her claim for benefits. Among the events complained of were reprimands for taking breaks that were longer than allowed (which she contended resulted from her taking prescription medication which required her to drink excessive amounts of liquids thus requiring increased restroom usage), and for refusing to sign the warning notice given to her for that incident. In addition, despite outstanding performance scores, she was overlooked for promotions that were given to newer employees. She was terminated after being advised that the reason for termination was unsatisfactory performance based on the way that she had handled a telephone call. However, the next day, she corresponded with the CEO of DME and asked him to investigate her termination. He advised her that she was good at what she did, and that she was not let go because she could not do the job or was not doing a good job, but simply because there was not enough work to go around.

This evidence, said the Fifth District, was sufficient to withstand Direct Mail's motion for directed verdict and to permit the jury to find that Andrews was fired because she pursued her claim.  Thus, the jury should have been allowed to decide the case.  See Andrews v. Direct Mail Express, Inc., decided on 2/6/2009.

Full post as published by Florida Workers’ Compensation Law Blog on February 06, 2009 (boomark / email).