Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 25-5-11.1 (2026)
Employee Not to Be Terminated Solely for Action to Recover Benefits nor for Filing Notice of Safety Rule Violation.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
No employee shall be terminated by an employer solely because the employee has instituted or maintained any action against the employer to recover workers’ compensation benefits under this chapter or solely because the employee has filed a written notice of violation of a safety rule pursuant to subdivision (c)(4) of Section 25-5-11.
(Acts 1984, 2nd Ex. Sess., No. 85-41, p. 44, §11.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 147
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Alabama Power Co. v. Aldridge, 854 So. 2d 554 (Ala. 2002).
Alabama Power Co. v. Aldridge, 854 So. 2d 554 (Ala. 2002). “APCo also points to § 25-5-11.1, Ala.Code of 1975, which states that an employee cannot be discharged "solely because" he or she has brought a claim for workers' compensation benefits.”
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. McCollum, 881 So. 2d 976 (Ala. 2003). “, appeals from the Marshall Circuit Court's judgment entered on a jury verdict against it and in favor of Martha McCollum in her action alleging retaliatory discharge under Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-11.1, a part of the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act.”
Falls v. JVC Am., Inc., 7 So. 3d 986 (Ala. 2008). “" Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-11.1. In Alabama Power Co.”
Bleier v. Wellington Sears Co., 757 So. 2d 1163 (Ala. 2000). “The retaliatory-discharge claim was made pursuant to § 25-5-11.1, Ala.Code 1975. [1] The trial court severed Bleier's two claims; Bleier and Wellington Sears later settled the workers' compensation claim.”
Farrior v. Sodexho, U.S.A., 953 F. Supp. 1301 (N.D. Ala. 1997). “Plaintiff charges retaliatory termination from her employment by defendants as a direct result of her having requested treatment for her injury — a termination violative of Alabama Code § 25-5-11.1 (1986) which reads as follows: § 25-5-11.”
Roberts v. Beaulieu of Am., Inc., 950 F. Supp. 1509 (N.D. Ala. 1996). “Plaintiff alleges that, while employed by defendant, he was injured on the job, filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, and thereafter was wrongfully terminated in violation of Alabama Code § 25-5-11.1 (1992). That statute provides: No employee shall be terminated by…”
Webb Wheel Prods., Inc. v. Hanvey, 922 So. 2d 865 (Ala. 2005). “" This Court has articulated the following test for determining whether a plaintiff may recover under § 25-5-11.1: "In order for an employee to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge the employee must show: 1) an employment relationship, 2) an on-the-job injury,…”
Cheatwood v. Roanoke Indus., 891 F. Supp. 1528 (N.D. Ala. 1995). “In Count Two plaintiff alleges that defendant terminated him for filing a workers’ compensation claim in violation of Alabama Code § 25-5-11.1. In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted deposition excerpts of plaintiff Daryl Cheatwood, Kenneth Kirby, and…”
Twilley v. Daubert Coated Prods., Inc., 536 So. 2d 1364 (Ala. 1988). “1, which provides in pertinent part as follows: "No employee shall be terminated by an employer solely because the employee has instituted or maintained any action against the employer to recover worker's compensation benefits under this chapter.”
Subra v. CMS Therapies, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 407 (M.D. Ala. 1995). “Plaintiff’s complaint contained just one count in which she alleges a violation of Alabama Code § 25-5-11.1 (1975), a subsection of the Alabama Workers’ Compensation statute.”
Morgan v. Ne. Alabama Reg. Med. Ctr., 624 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1993). “The issue is whether the trial court erred in holding that Morgan cannot maintain an action pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-11.1, on the basis that he failed to give proper notice of a violation of a safety rule.”
Hollander v. Nichols, 19 So. 3d 184 (Ala. 2009). “The trial court's order states that "having alleged retaliatory discharge in violation of Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-11.1, in a prior action, [Hollander] is estopped from now claiming the workers' compensation act does not apply to give immunity to the [Nichols] defendants.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.