58 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Twilley v. Daubert Coated Products, Inc.green2 sentences1998In reviewing a motion for JNOV, this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party who secured the jury verdict and must consider those reasonable evidentiary inferences a jury could have drawn." (Citations omitted.) Section 25-5-11.1 states that "[n]o 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...." In Twilley v. Daubert Coated Products, Inc., 536 So.2d 1364, 1369 (Ala.1988), our supreme court stated the burden of proof *998 necessary to esta 1996These cases relied on Twilley v. Daubert Coated Prods., Inc. , 536 So.2d 1364 , 1365 (Ala. 1988), to again impliedly recognize a "willing and able" to return-to-work element of a retaliatory discharge claim. | 4 | 5 |
Consolidated Stores, Inc. v. Gargisgreen2 sentences1999This court has further held that "an essential element of a retaliatory discharge claim is the [worker's] willingness and ability to return to work." Consolidated Stores, Inc. v. Gargis, 686 So.2d 268 , 273 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996). 1999This court has also held that “an essential element of a retaliatory discharge claim is the plaintiffs willingness and ability to return to work.” Consolidated Stores, Inc. v. Gargis, 686 So.2d 268, 273 (Ala.Civ.App.1996), cert. denied, 686 So.2d 278 (Ala.1996); see also Lambert v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 695 So.2d 44 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). | 2 | 7 |
Gates Rubber Company v. Phillip Cantrellgreen2 sentences2010Id. at 756 . 2008By now, it is without question that language like that quoted above in a release in a workers’ compensation action releases the employer from liability for a retaliatory-discharge claim arising from the workers’ compensation claim unless there is evidence of fraud. 3 See Gates Rubber Co. v. Cantrell, 678 So.2d 754, 756 (Ala.1996); Ex parte Aratex Servs., Inc., 622 So.2d 367, 369 (Ala.1993); Sanders v. Southern Risk Servs., 603 So.2d 994, 995 (Ala.1992); and Dow-United Tech. | 2 | 4 |
Culbreth v. Woodham Plumbing Co., Inc.green2 sentences1998In the context of a summary judgment motion filed by the employer in regard to a retaliatory discharge claim, our supreme court, in Culbreth , 599 So.2d at 1122 , stated the following: "[I]f the [employer] has supported a summary judgment motion with evidence of a legitimate reason for terminating the [employee], the [employee] must then refute that showing with his own prima facie case; of course, the [employee] has no burden to produce evidence before trial until the [employer] has made and properly supported a motion for [a] summary judgment. 1998The burden would then shift to the defendant employer to come forward with evidence that the employee was terminated for a legitimate reason, whereupon the plaintiff must prove that the reason was not true but a pretext for an otherwise impermissible termination." Furthermore, in the context of a summary judgment motion filed by the employer in regard to a retaliatory discharge claim, our supreme court, in Culbreth , 599 So.2d at 1122 , stated the following: "[I]f the [employer] has supported a summary judgment motion with evidence of a legitimate reason for terminating the [employee], the [em | 2 | 4 |
Alabama Power Co. v. Aldridgegreen2 sentences2009To succeed on a retaliatory-discharge claim under § 25-5-11.1, Ala.Code 1975, a plaintiff must show: “1) an employment relationship; 2) an on-the-job injury; 3) knowledge on the part of the employer of the on-the-job injury; and 4) subsequent termination of employment based solely upon the employee’s on-the-job injury and the filing of a workers’ compensation claim.” Alabama Power Co. v. Aldridge, 854 So.2d 554, 563 (Ala.2002). 2009To succeed on a retaliatory-discharge claim under § 25-5-11.1, Ala.Code 1975, a plaintiff must show: "1) an employment relationship; 2) an on-the-job injury; 3) knowledge on the part of the employer of the on-the-job injury; and 4) subsequent termination of employment based solely upon the employee's on the job injury and the filing of a workers' compensation claim." Alabama Power Co. v. Aldridge, 854 So.2d 554, 563 (Ala.2002). | 2 | 3 |
Ex Parte Aratex Services, Inc.green2 sentences2008By now, it is without question that language like that quoted above in a release in a workers’ compensation action releases the employer from liability for a retaliatory-discharge claim arising from the workers’ compensation claim unless there is evidence of fraud. 3 See Gates Rubber Co. v. Cantrell, 678 So.2d 754, 756 (Ala.1996); Ex parte Aratex Servs., Inc., 622 So.2d 367, 369 (Ala.1993); Sanders v. Southern Risk Servs., 603 So.2d 994, 995 (Ala.1992); and Dow-United Tech. 2008Ex parte Aratex Servs., Inc., 622 So.2d at 369 (citing Regional Health Servs., Inc. v. Hale County Hosp. | 2 | 2 |
Dow-United Technologies Composite Products, Inc. v. Webstergreen2 sentences2008Composite Prods., Inc. v. Webster, 701 So.2d 22, 24 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). 1997See Dow-United Technologies Composite Products, Inc. v. Webster, 701 So.2d 22 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). | 2 | 2 |
Batey & Sanders, Inc. v. Doddgreen2 sentences2017See Rodriguez-Flores v. U.S. Coatings, Inc., 133 So.3d 874, 885 (Ala. 2013) (“A retaliatory-discharge claim filed pursuant to § 25-5-11.1 [of the Workers’ Compensation Act] is in the nature of a traditional tort claim .... ”); Batey & Sanders, Inc. v. Dodd, 755 So.2d 581, 583 (Ala. Civ. 2014The Court of Civil Appeals stated that, “[b]ecause the wrong complained of occurred in Georgia, the law of Georgia applies,” and it granted the petition and ordered the trial court to dis miss the retaliatory-discharge claim because Georgia law does not recognize a cause of action for retaliatory discharge. 755 So.2d at 583 . | 1 | 2 |
Sanders v. Southern Risk Servicesgreen2 sentences2008By now, it is without question that language like that quoted above in a release in a workers’ compensation action releases the employer from liability for a retaliatory-discharge claim arising from the workers’ compensation claim unless there is evidence of fraud. 3 See Gates Rubber Co. v. Cantrell, 678 So.2d 754, 756 (Ala.1996); Ex parte Aratex Servs., Inc., 622 So.2d 367, 369 (Ala.1993); Sanders v. Southern Risk Servs., 603 So.2d 994, 995 (Ala.1992); and Dow-United Tech. 1996The language of the settlement agreement, settling claims as to "any and all liability now accrued or hereafter to accrue for compensation and vocational rehabilitation benefits," is not substantially different from the language this Court examined in Sanders v. Southern Risk Services , 603 So.2d 994 (Ala. 1992). | 1 | 2 |
Bryant v. Flagstar Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2008Because the retaliatory-discharge claim remains pending, the employee’s appeal is from a nonfinal judgment. “ ‘When it is determined that an order appealed from is not a final judgment, it is the duty of the Court to dismiss the appeal ex mero motu.’ ” Bryant, 717 So.2d at 402 (quoting Powell v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. 2008Because the retaliatory-discharge claim remains pending, the employee's appeal is from a nonfinal judgment. "`When it is determined that an order appealed from is not a final judgment, it is the duty of the Court to dismiss the appeal ex mero motu.'" Bryant, 717 So.2d at 402 (quoting Powell v. Republic Nat'l Life Ins. | 1 | 2 |
Lambert v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences1999This court has also held that “an essential element of a retaliatory discharge claim is the plaintiffs willingness and ability to return to work.” Consolidated Stores, Inc. v. Gargis, 686 So.2d 268, 273 (Ala.Civ.App.1996), cert. denied, 686 So.2d 278 (Ala.1996); see also Lambert v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 695 So.2d 44 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). 1997In Lambert v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc. , 695 So.2d 44 , 47 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied (Ala. 1997), this court stated the following, in pertinent part: "Lambert requests that this court modify its decision in Consolidated Stores [, 686 So.2d 268 ,] by altering the requirement that plaintiffs must prove they are able to return to work in order to establish a claim of retaliatory discharge or wrongful termination. | 1 | 2 |
Branch v. Southtrust Bank of Dothan, N.A.green2 sentences2017The majority has concluded that the tort-of-outrage claim and the retaliatory-discharge claim " 'are so closely intertwined that separate adjudication [of those claims] would pose an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results.' " 240 So.3d at 610-11 (quoting Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A. , 514 So.2d 1373 , 1374 (Ala. 1987) ). 2017See id. | 1 | 1 |
Gibson v. Staffco, L.L.C.green1 sentence2017See also Gibson v. Staffco, L.L.C. , 63 So.3d 1272 , 1274 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez-Flores v. U.S. Coatings, Inc.green1 sentence2017See Rodriguez-Flores v. U.S. Coatings, Inc., 133 So.3d 874, 885 (Ala. 2013) (“A retaliatory-discharge claim filed pursuant to § 25-5-11.1 [of the Workers’ Compensation Act] is in the nature of a traditional tort claim .... ”); Batey & Sanders, Inc. v. Dodd, 755 So.2d 581, 583 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
| Wallace v. Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Miles v. Boeing Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Walter Spearman v. Exxon Coal Usa, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Reed v. Heil Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dunn v. Comcast Corporationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Powell v. Republic National Life Insurance Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Phillips v. Opp & Micolas Cotton Mills, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Smithermangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Heppgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Breitsprechergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gulf States Steel, Inc. v. Whitegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hammock v. Ryder Dedicated Logistics, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bussey v. John Deere Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Gargis
green
2 sentences1999This court has also held that “an essential element of a retaliatory discharge claim is the plaintiffs willingness and ability to return to work.” Consolidated Stores, Inc. v. Gargis, 686 So.2d 268, 273 (Ala.Civ.App.1996), cert. denied, 686 So.2d 278 (Ala.1996); see also Lambert v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 695 So.2d 44 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). 1997In Consolidated Stores, Inc. v. Gargis , 686 So.2d 268 , 273 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied , 686 So.2d 278 (Ala. 1996), this court held that "an essential element of a retaliatory discharge claim is the plaintiff's willingness and ability to return to work." The record is replete with evidence that Bailey never has been able to return to her job at Walker Regional. | 4 | 1997–1999 |
Jackson County Hosp. v. ALA. HOSP. TRUST
green
2 sentences2017We therefore hold that the retaliatory discharge claim is in the nature of a traditional tort, albeit one that is applied in the specialized circumstances of a worker's compensation claim, and thus does not arise 'under' our workers' compensation law for purposes of the general liability insurance provision in this case." 619 So.2d at 1371 . 2010After pointing out “that claims that do ‘arise under’ workers’ compensation laws are generally for occupational diseases and accidental injuries resulting from one’s employment,” the court held that “the retaliatory discharge claim is in the nature of a traditional tort, albeit one that is applied in the specialized circumstances of a worker’s compensation claim, and thus does not arise ‘under’ our workers’ compensation law for purposes of the general liability insurance provision in this case.” Id. | 2 | 2010–2017 |
Bleier v. Wellington Sears Company
green
2 sentences2007The failure of Phillips to meet his burden of proof renders his retaliatory discharge cause of action legally deficient thereby warranting entry of judgment in favor of Blue Circle." In Bleier v. Wellington Sears Co., 757 So.2d 1163 (Ala.2000), this Court held that the willing-and-able-to-return-to-work doctrine was not an element of a worker's compensation claimant's prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, but the question whether the claimant is willing and able to return to work is relevant to the employer's opportunity to establish a defense to a retaliatory-discharge claim. 2007The failure of Phillips to meet his burden of proof renders his retaliatory discharge cause of action legally deficient thereby warranting entry of judgment in favor of Blue Circle." In Bleier v. Wellington Sears Co., 757 So.2d 1163 (Ala.2000), this Court held that the willing-and-able-to-return-to-work doctrine was not an element of a worker's compensation claimant's prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, but the question whether the claimant is willing and able to return to work is relevant to the employer's opportunity to establish a defense to a retaliatory-discharge claim. | 2 | 2000–2007 |
ConAgra, Inc. v. Adams
green
2 sentences2005The retaliatory discharge theory asserted in the amended complaint was not based on facts that had been brought to ConAgra's attention in the original complaint." 638 So.2d at 754 . 2002See also Gulf States Steel, Inc. v. White , 742 So.2d 1264 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999) (holding a claim set forth in an amended complaint was time-barred because it arose from a different fact situation than did the claim contained in the original complaint and because it introduced a new cause of action); ConAgra, Inc. v. Adams , supra (holding that the retaliatory-discharge claim in the plaintiff's amended complaint did not relate back because that claim did not arise out of the same events that formed the basis for the workers' compensation claim set forth in the plaintiff's original complaint). | 2 | 2002–2005 |
Terry v. Lee Apparel Co., Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1999Cf. Terry v. Lee Apparel Co. , 656 So.2d 811 , 813 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994)." Id. at 427. 1995Cf. Terry v. Lee Apparel Co., Inc. , 656 So.2d 811 , 813 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994) (although employee was terminated after she sought workers' compensation benefits, summary judgment was proper since there was no evidence to support the employee's claim that she was terminated because she sought [workers' compensation] benefits). | 2 | 1995–1999 |
Cleckler v. a & C Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024App. 2001), held that a retaliatory-discharge claim should not be dismissed because of a finding that "that [the plaintiff's] injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment." The Court of Civil Appeals held that, under the text of the statute and the Twilley rule, there was "no requirement that an employee be successful 8 SC-2024-0235 in his claim for workers' compensation benefits." Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Koullas v. Ramsey
green
1 sentence2017Even assuming, arguendo, that an uncertainty or a latent ambiguity exists in the language of the document establishing the EDR program concerning covered and noncovered disputes, it is well settled that federal policy "dictates that [any uncertainty or ambiguity] be resolved in favor of arbitration." Koullas , 683 So.2d at 417 . "[A]ny doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability." Moses H. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Dillard's, Inc. v. Gallups
green
1 sentence2017A retaliatory-discharge claim does not arise under the Workers' Compensation Act such that it falls within the exclusion stated in the [agreement] for '[p]ersonal injuries ... covered by workers' compensation.' " 58 So.3d at 201 -04 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Ex Parte Daniels
green
1 sentence2014This Court has held that a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means by which to review the following: subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Johnson, 715 So.2d 783 (Ala.1998); standing as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288 (Ala.2007); nonjusticiability as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Valloze, 142 So.3d 504 (Ala.2013); personal jurisdiction, Ex parte Duck Boo Int’l Co., 985 So.2d 900 (Ala.2007); immunity, Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173 (Ala.2000); failure to exercise due diligence in identifying, before expiration of the s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Bad Toys Holdings v. Emergystat of Sulligent
green
1 sentence2014This Court has held that a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means by which to review the following: subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Johnson, 715 So.2d 783 (Ala.1998); standing as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288 (Ala.2007); nonjusticiability as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Valloze, 142 So.3d 504 (Ala.2013); personal jurisdiction, Ex parte Duck Boo Int’l Co., 985 So.2d 900 (Ala.2007); immunity, Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173 (Ala.2000); failure to exercise due diligence in identifying, before expiration of the s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ex Parte Caremark RX, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014This Court has held that a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means by which to review the following: subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Johnson, 715 So.2d 783 (Ala.1998); standing as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288 (Ala.2007); nonjusticiability as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Valloze, 142 So.3d 504 (Ala.2013); personal jurisdiction, Ex parte Duck Boo Int’l Co., 985 So.2d 900 (Ala.2007); immunity, Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173 (Ala.2000); failure to exercise due diligence in identifying, before expiration of the s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ex Parte Kia Motors America, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014This Court has held that a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means by which to review the following: subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Johnson, 715 So.2d 783 (Ala.1998); standing as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288 (Ala.2007); nonjusticiability as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Valloze, 142 So.3d 504 (Ala.2013); personal jurisdiction, Ex parte Duck Boo Int’l Co., 985 So.2d 900 (Ala.2007); immunity, Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173 (Ala.2000); failure to exercise due diligence in identifying, before expiration of the s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ex Parte Chemical Lime of Alabama, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014This Court has held that a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means by which to review the following: subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Johnson, 715 So.2d 783 (Ala.1998); standing as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288 (Ala.2007); nonjusticiability as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Valloze, 142 So.3d 504 (Ala.2013); personal jurisdiction, Ex parte Duck Boo Int’l Co., 985 So.2d 900 (Ala.2007); immunity, Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173 (Ala.2000); failure to exercise due diligence in identifying, before expiration of the s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Ex Parte Johnson green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Ex Parte HealthSouth Corp. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ex Parte Butts
green
1 sentence2014This Court has held that a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means by which to review the following: subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Johnson, 715 So.2d 783 (Ala.1998); standing as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288 (Ala.2007); nonjusticiability as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Valloze, 142 So.3d 504 (Ala.2013); personal jurisdiction, Ex parte Duck Boo Int’l Co., 985 So.2d 900 (Ala.2007); immunity, Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173 (Ala.2000); failure to exercise due diligence in identifying, before expiration of the s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ex Parte Duck Boo Intern. Co., Ltd.
green
1 sentence2014This Court has held that a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means by which to review the following: subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Johnson, 715 So.2d 783 (Ala.1998); standing as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288 (Ala.2007); nonjusticiability as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Valloze, 142 So.3d 504 (Ala.2013); personal jurisdiction, Ex parte Duck Boo Int’l Co., 985 So.2d 900 (Ala.2007); immunity, Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173 (Ala.2000); failure to exercise due diligence in identifying, before expiration of the s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc. v. Valloze
green
1 sentence2014This Court has held that a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means by which to review the following: subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Johnson, 715 So.2d 783 (Ala.1998); standing as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288 (Ala.2007); nonjusticiability as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Valloze, 142 So.3d 504 (Ala.2013); personal jurisdiction, Ex parte Duck Boo Int’l Co., 985 So.2d 900 (Ala.2007); immunity, Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173 (Ala.2000); failure to exercise due diligence in identifying, before expiration of the s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Green Oil Co. v. Hornsby green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Martin v. Harrelson green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Hammond v. City of Gadsden green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Ex Parte Vance green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Sloan v. Jasper County Community Unit School District No. 1 green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Subra v. CMS Therapies, Inc. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Dudley v. Mesa Industries green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Tyson Foods, Inc. v. McCollum green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Etheredge v. Flowers green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Ex Parte Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Bullion v. JMBL, INC. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Ex Parte Norwood green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Kent Corp. v. Hale green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Rice v. Bruno's Inc. neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Chambers County Com'rs v. Walker green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Fitts v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Wojciak v. Northern Package Corp. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Loyola University of Chicago v. Human Rights Commission green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.