office-6

WRONGFUL TERMINATION

In Amick v Pattonville-Bridgeton Terrace Fire Protection Dist., 91 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. banc 2002), even though retaliatory discharge claim was barred by sovereign immunity of the defendant as a political subdivision, it was covered under an insurance policy which covered “wrongful acts”. The claim was allowed to proceed.

In Bryant v Continental Steel and Conveyor, a Jackson Co. Circuit Court case (99CV 214910, ½8/00), a jury awarded plaintiff $20,360 for his lost wages and $109,250 in punitive damages in a case where the plaintiff was a welder who was fired while receiving treatment for a work-related injury. After being fully released to return to work, plaintiff missed two consecutive days of work. On the third day, plaintiff was fired. Plaintiff contended that the defendant fired him because it considered him to be damaged goods after a dozen years of hard labor and because he was likely to miss up to a year of work for upcoming shoulder surgery.

In Stephenson v Raskas Dairy, 26 S.W.3d 209 (Mo.App. 2000). Retaliatory discharge claim was reversed. The Court found the discharge did not arise from exercise of workers’ compensation rights, reversing award of $600,000.00. Claimant was transferred 2 months after filing a claim, states work conditions were deplorable and retaliatory. The medical records indicate full release, and claimant stated she was physically unable to do portions of her job. Claimant alleged the transfer was retaliatory because the warehouse had mice, it was smelly, dusty, did not have a good bathroom and no administrative offices to get check.

Having a Seminar?
Join our E-Mail List
to stay up to date with Evans & Dixon