Title: Register v. Outdoor Aluminum, Inc.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1200181
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 7, 2021

Rel: May 7, 2021
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. 
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2020-2021
____________________
1200181
____________________
Laura Register
v.
Outdoor Aluminum, Inc.
Appeal from Geneva Circuit Court
(CV-18-900062)
BOLIN, Justice.
1200181
Laura Register appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor
of Outdoor Aluminum, Inc., as to her claim alleging  retaliatory discharge
in violation of § 25-5-11.1, Ala. Code 1975.   We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
Register was employed by Outdoor Aluminum as a laborer.   As an
employee of Outdoor Aluminum, Register signed a form that provided:
"As an employee of Outdoor Aluminum, you are entitled to
compensation for any injury you receive while on the job. If
you are injured, proper procedure must be followed to receive
this compensation. 
"1. In the event of an injury, you must notify your
supervisor within 24 hours.
"2. You must receive treatment from an approved doctor.
Our  company doctor is Dr. Kraft.  With an alternate company
doctor as Dr. Cosper.
"3. You must submit to a drug test at the time of initial
treatment/examination.
"Failure to abide by the above procedures could result in loss
of job and compensation benefits."
Paul Rose, Outdoor Aluminum's production manager, developed a
"Notice of Disciplinary Action Form."  The form outlined a three-step
warning process concerning disciplinary actions against employees.  The
2
1200181
first warning results in employee counseling, the second warning results
in a three-day suspension, and the third warning results in termination
of employment. One of the grounds for disciplinary action listed in the
form is absenteeism.  
The record reflects the following facts.  On October 20, 2016,
Register, as part of her employment, laid out metal material, drilled or
punched holes in the material, and deburred1 and cut the material.  
Register punched holes in the metal material with a hydraulic-press
machine.   The hydraulic press became misaligned and was not punching
through the metal.   When Register attempted to fix the press, the press
exploded, causing a two-inch long and half-inch thick piece of metal to
strike Register on the head above her right eye and temple.  Register
reported the incident to her supervisor, Roger Wise.  She told Wise she
needed to go to the hospital.   Another employee drove Register to the
hospital where she was treated in the emergency room.
1According to testimony in the record, deburring removes
imperfections from machined metal.
3
1200181
As a result of the incident, Register's neck and head were injured
and she had headaches, blurred vision, dizziness, balance problems, and
pain.   Register sought workers' compensation benefits and medical
treatment from Outdoor Aluminum.    Dr. Christopher Cosper, one of the
doctors approved by Outdoor Aluminum, treated Register.  
Sandy Redding was assigned as Register's nurse case manager to
facilitate Register's treatment.   A nurse case manager schedules certain
appointments and may go to appointments with the patient.   The case
manager ensures that the doctor's orders regarding treatment, such as
attending physical therapy, are carried out. 
 
Dr. Cosper treated Register as Outdoor Aluminum's authorized
physician.   As part of his treatment, Dr. Cosper referred Register to other
physicians for certain procedures and treatment.  Dr. Cosper released
Register to work light duty in March 2017, but Register's symptoms
worsened after returning to work.   Register returned to Dr. Cosper, who
restricted her from working in early April 2017.  Dr. Cosper referred
Register to Dr. Jeremiah Maddox for treatment of her continued neck pain
and headaches.   Dr. Maddox concluded that Register was not a candidate
4
1200181
for surgery in relation to her neck injury and scheduled her for a
functional-capacity evaluation  ("FCE") on June 20, 2017.  Dr. Maddox
also referred Register to other treatment providers for epidural injections
and physical therapy.  Dr. Joshua Meyers, who administered the epidural
injections, restricted Register from work until she could be given a
neurological examination. 
On June 6, 2017, Rose, Outdoor Aluminum's production manager, 
contacted Redding, Register's nurse case manager, concerning Register's
work status.  Redding responded that she had attended Register's
appointment with Dr. Maddox on June 5, 2017, and that Dr. Maddox had
ordered Register to remain off duty until Register received the results of
the  FCE.  Redding stated that, once Dr. Maddox received the FCE
results, Redding was to make a follow-up appointment for Register with
Dr. Maddox so that he could go over the results with her.  Redding stated
that she would be at the appointment with Register and would notify Rose
of the outcome immediately afterwards.   Rose sent an e-mail to Redding,
asking: "Just when will this happen?  This is dragging out way past its
time."  Before Redding responded, Rose sent a second e-mail stating: 
5
1200181
"I guess I want to know what's taking so long to get
through all of this?   The last time I spoke with anyone, the
appointment yesterday was going to be to release her.  We
seem to be just going from one place to another TRYING to
find a place that will say she's disabled.  She has no trouble
going to yard sales and such.[2] It seems light duty is easier
than that."  
Redding responded that she understood Rose's frustration.  She also
sent Rose the work-status report that Dr. Maddox had given Register at
the appointment on June 5, 2017.   On June 20, 2017, Register underwent
the FCE as ordered by Dr. Maddox.   On June 26, 2017, Redding e-mailed
Rose and told him that the FCE had been completed and that it normally
took 10 days to receive an FCE report.  She also stated that she would let
Rose know when the report was in and when Register had her follow-up
appointment with Dr. Maddox. 
  
On July 18, 2017, Register had a follow-up appointment with Dr.
Cosper concerning her neurological symptoms.   Dr. Cosper referred
Register to Dr. Meyers again for pain management, and Dr. Cosper wrote
an excuse restricting Register from returning to work until July 27, 2017.
2The record reflects that Rose had gathered this information by
viewing postings on Register's social-media accounts. 
6
1200181
On July 20, 2017, at 3:44 p.m., Rose e-mailed Redding asking if there
had been any update on Register's condition since her FCE on June 20,
2017.  That same day, at 4:36 p.m., Redding forwarded Register's FCE
report to Rose, noting that, based on the report,  Dr. Maddox had released
her to full duty with zero impairment.  Sometime after that and before
July 21, 2017, at 8:55 a.m., Rose had a telephone conversation with
Redding.  In an e-mail to Outdoor Aluminum staff dated July 21, 2017, at
8:55 a.m., Rose wrote: 
"Here is the final report on Laura Register.  I called Ms.
Redding and she told me that according to the report,
[Register] should have been back to work already.  She has
assured me that Worker's Comp payments have been stopped.
"After I read all this, I will compose a letter and mail to
[Register] and tell her that we have considered her to have
cancelled her insurance.
"Does that meet with everyone's approval?"
On July 21, 2017, Rose sent Register a letter terminating her
employment.   The letter provided as follows:
" I received the attached report yesterday via email from
Ms. Sandy Redding, with Carlisle and Associates. 
7
1200181
"In the report, dated 6/25/2017, item 7 on page 2
indicates that you were recommended to be released within
physician discretion. On page 12 of the same report it was
found that you have a recommended impairment of 0% of your
whole person. That page is dated 6/27/17 and Dr. Maddox
certified that it was medically correct on 6/28/17.
"With the knowledge of this report, I can conclude that
you should have reported back to work on 6/29/17.  Instead,
you have had no contact with either your supervisor, myself or
Outdoor Aluminum, Inc., and you have never reported back to
work in the approximately 3 weeks since this report.
"Regrettably, it is obvious to me that you no longer wish
to be employed here, and with that in mind, as of today
7/21/17, you have been terminated, due to lack of attendance.
"Your health insurance has been canceled as of this date
also.
"In the next few days you will receive information from
either Outdoor Aluminum or BCBS on how you can continue
your health insurance coverage should you so desire."
At the time Rose sent that letter, Register had neither received a
copy of her FCE report nor met with Dr. Maddox regarding the FCE
results as Redding had indicated was necessary.   It is undisputed that
Register had been restricted from returning to work until July 27, 2017,
by Dr. Cosper.   
8
1200181
On June 27, 2018, Register sued Outdoor Aluminum seeking
workers' compensation benefits and damages for retaliatory discharge.  
The parties engaged in discovery.
On May 22, 2020, Outdoor Aluminum filed a motion for a summary
judgment regarding Register's retaliatory-discharge claim, arguing that
Register cannot show that her workers' compensation claim was the sole
motivating factor behind the termination of her employment.  Specifically,
Outdoor Aluminum argued that Rose had been unaware that Dr. Cosper
had restricted Register from work until July 27, 2017.   Without Rose's
knowledge of the work restriction, Outdoor Aluminum argued, Register's
alleged absenteeism was a valid basis for her discharge and her workers'
compensation claim could not be construed as the sole reason for the
termination of Register's employment.  Outdoor Aluminum asserted that
Redding had not told Rose of and had not sent Rose any information
regarding Dr. Cosper's work restriction.    Outdoor Aluminum also argued
that it did not terminate Register 's employment until nine months after
she had sought workers' compensation benefits and that, therefore, there
is no proximity between Register's seeking benefits and Outdoor
9
1200181
Aluminum's terminating her employment.  Outdoor Aluminum argued
that there was no evidence indicating that it had a negative attitude
toward Register "regarding her injured condition."  Although Outdoor
Aluminum had a policy regarding attendance, Rose testified that it was
Outdoor Aluminum's policy to retain discretion to skip steps in its policy
if needed.   Outdoor Aluminum also asserted that there was no evidence
indicating that other employees had been discharged for filing a workers'
compensation claim. Lastly, Outdoor Aluminum  argued that it had a
legitimate nonretaliatory reason for terminating Register because she had
not returned to work after being released by Dr. Maddox.   
 
On June 15, 2020, Register filed a response to the summary-
judgment motion, arguing that summary judgment was inappropriate
because, she said:  (1) Outdoor Aluminum had failed to follow its own
policies and procedures when it discharged Register; (2) Outdoor
Aluminum’s negative attitude toward Register and her maintaining her
workers’ compensation claim was evident in the e-mail exchange between
Rose and Redding; (3) Outdoor Aluminum discharged Register for lack of
attendance despite the fact she was being held out of work by an
10
1200181
authorized treating physician on the date of her discharge; and (4)
Outdoor Aluminum had failed to conduct even the most cursory of
investigations with regard to the return-to-work order issued by its own
treating physician before discharging Register and, instead, had taken
"the first perceived opportunity it could find to terminate Register for a
'legitimate reason' because it felt her workers' compensation claim was
'dragging out way past its time' and she appeared to be 'TRYING to find
a place that will say she's disabled.' "   Register presented testimony
indicating that Redding denied telling Rose that Register should have
been back to work after Rose had received the results of the FCE. 
Redding also testified that it was not within her purview to advise Rose
and that she had referred Rose to the workers' compensation claims
adjuster.    Register presented evidence indicating that Outdoor
Aluminum had received medical bills and treatment notes from Dr.
Cosper, that an employee of Outdoor Aluminum had sent e-mails to the
claims adjuster, and that an employee of Outdoor Aluminum had
forwarded Dr. Cosper's office notes from July 18, 2017, to the claims
adjuster. 
11
1200181
On June 17, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the summary-
judgment motion.   On July 2, 2020, the trial court entered an order
granting Outdoor Aluminum's summary-judgment motion as to Register's 
retaliatory-discharge claim.   On August 4, 2020, Register filed a motion
requesting that the summary judgment as to the retaliatory-discharge
claim be certified as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., and, that
same day, the trial court certified  the summary judgment on Register's
retaliatory-discharge claim as final.  Register timely appealed.
Standard of Review
"This Court reviews a summary judgment de novo,
'apply[ing] the same standard of review as the trial court.' Slay
v. Keller Indus., Inc., 823 So. 2d 623, 624 (Ala. 2001). 'In order
to enter a summary judgment, the trial court must determine:
1) that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and 2) that
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'
Williams v. Ditto, 601 So. 2d 482, 484 (Ala. 1992). This Court
must view the evidence in the light most favorable to, and
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of, the nonmoving
party. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. DPF Architects,
P.C., 792 So. 2d 369, 372 (Ala. 2001)."
Gustin v. Vulcan Termite & Pest Control, Inc., [Ms. 1190255, Oct. 30,
2020] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2020).
Discussion
12
1200181
"As a general rule in Alabama, an employment contract
for an indefinite period is terminable at will by either party,
with or without cause or justification.  Hoffman–LaRoche, Inc.
v. Campbell, 512 So. 2d 725 (Ala.1987).  The Legislature
carved out an exception to that general rule, however, with
regard to a discharge of an employee in the aftermath of the
filing of a workers' compensation claim.   Section 25-5-11.1
provides:
" '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....' "
Flint Constr. Co. v. Hall, 904 So. 2d 236, 246 (Ala. 2004)(emphasis added).
This Court, in Alabama Power Co. v. Aldridge, 854 So. 2d  554, 563
(Ala. 2002), explained: 
"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, 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."
"Because direct evidence demonstrating that an employer has
discharged an employee solely because the employee has filed a workers'
compensation claim is not often easily obtained, an employee may
13
1200181
establish by circumstantial evidence that the actual reason for the
discharge was the employee's filing of a workers' compensation claim." 
Hatch v. NTW, Inc., 35 So. 3d 623, 628 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (citing  
Aldridge, 854 So. 2d at 564-55).
In Aldridge, this Court clarified the proof necessary for establishing
a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge and that a plaintiff must prove
a causal connection between the workers' compensation claim and the
subsequent discharge.   The Aldridge Court noted that our prior caselaw
had not addressed in detail the evidence a plaintiff must present to show
that he or she was discharged solely because of his or her workers'
compensation claim.   The Court acknowledged that proximity in time
between the filing of the workers' compensation claim and the termination
of employment may be a typical beginning point, but is not the sole means
of showing a causal connection, and held that such temporal proximity
alone is insufficient.   854 So. 2d at 565.   The Aldridge Court also  cited
Chhim v. University of Houston, 76 S.W.3d 210, 218 (Tex. App. 2002).  In
Chhim, the Texas court set out examples of circumstantial evidence that
14
1200181
may be sufficient to establish a causal link between termination of
employment and the filing of a workers' compensation claim, including:
"1) knowledge of the compensation claim by those making the
decision on termination, 2) expression of a negative attitude
toward the employee's injured condition, 3) failure to adhere
to established company policy, 4) discriminatory treatment in
comparison to similarly situated employees, 5) sudden changes
in an employee's work performance evaluations following a
workers' compensation claim, and 6) evidence that the stated
reason for the discharge was false."
Chhim, 76 S.W.3d at 218.  
In Foster v. North American Bus Industries, Inc., 236 So. 3d 70 (Ala.
2017), the plaintiff suffered a head injury when she was drilling a hole in
a steel plate.   After her accident, the plaintiff was terminated from her
employment, and she commenced a retaliatory-discharge action.  The trial
court entered a summary judgment in favor of her employer.  This Court
reversed the summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff had
presented a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge by demonstrating,
among other things, that there was a relatively close proximity between
the date on which the plaintiff had filed a claim for workers' compensation
benefits and the date of her discharge. She was injured on July 10, 2012,
15
1200181
and filed her claim for benefits on that date; she was discharged on July
30, 2012. Additionally, there was no dispute that those who had made the
decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment, two employees in
particular, had known about the plaintiff's workers' compensation claim.
The plaintiff also presented evidence, albeit disputed, indicating that a
supervisor had expressed a negative attitude about the plaintiff''s injured
condition. There was also a conflict in the evidence as to whether the
employer had adhered to its attendance policy in terminating the
plaintiff's employment.   The Court addressed the employer's stated
reason for terminating the plaintiff's employment and whether that
reason was a pretext for terminating the plaintiff's employment.  The
Court concluded that there were numerous issues of fact precluding
summary judgment and that the jury should resolve whether the plaintiff
had complied with the employer's attendance policy; whether the
employer had a previous practice of deviating from the requirements of its
attendance policy; whether the employer had been aware that the
plaintiff's absences were related to her work injury; and whether  negative
comments made by the plaintiff's supervisor, suggesting  that the plaintiff
16
1200181
might have to find another job because of her injury, indicated the motive
behind the plaintiff's termination.   Foster, 236 So. 3d at 77.
 In the present case, it is undisputed that Register was employed by
Outdoor Aluminum, that  she was injured while she was performing her
job, and that Outdoor Aluminum was aware of her injury.    Viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to Register, the nonmovant, as this
Court must do, Gustin, ___ So. 3d at ___, it is clear that she has presented
substantial evidence indicating that Outdoor Aluminum terminated her
employment solely for maintaining her workers' compensation claim. 
Register complied with Outdoor Aluminum's requirement that she seek
treatment for her workplace injury  from one of their approved doctors,
Dr. Cosper.  It was Dr. Cosper who excused Register from work until July
27, 2017.  As part of Dr. Cosper's treatment, Register was referred to
other physicians for specific treatment and therapy.    Outdoor Aluminum
was clearly aware that Dr. Cosper was Register's treating physician,
because Outdoor Aluminum had required Register to use Dr. Cosper for
treatment of her on-the-job injury.   Register presented evidence
indicating that an employee of Outdoor Aluminum had forwarded Dr.
17
1200181
Cosper's office notes to the workers' compensation claims adjuster and
that the same employee had been sent Rose's e-mail regarding Register's
discharge.
When Dr. Maddox, to whom Register was referred to by Dr. Cosper, 
ordered an FCE, Rose expressed a negative attitude toward Register's
workers' compensation claim, suggesting that Register was searching for
a physician who would conclude that she was disabled.  Rose also
expressed a negative attitude toward Register's maintaining her workers'
compensation claim by stating that Register had no problem going to yard
sales and that light-duty work would be easier than attending such sales. 
Rose's statements, which he made before the FCE occurred,  indicate
either that he did not believe that  Register's injuries were serious or that
he believed that she was exaggerating her injuries to stay out of work.   
The evidence indicates that Outdoor Aluminum did not comply with
its own disciplinary policy when it terminated Register's employment. 
Outdoor Aluminum had a disciplinary-action form that set out its policy. 
Although Rose's deposition testimony provides that complying with the
disciplinary process set out on the form was discretionary and that
18
1200181
Outdoor Aluminum reserved the right to skip steps in its disciplinary
process, nothing on the form indicates that Outdoor Aluminum reserved
such discretion.  Cf.  Hale v. Hyundai Motor Mfg. Alabama, LLC, 86 So.
3d 1015, 1028 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012)(indicating that company had an
express policy in its handbook regarding serious violations of its
attendance policy but that, in certain circumstances, such as situations
involving falsification of employment records like bereavement-leave
requests, the company would forgo its policy). In its brief to this Court,
Outdoor Aluminum makes several arguments regarding the informality
of the process set out on the disciplinary-action form and that Register's
interpretation of the form, taken to its logical conclusion, is unworkable,
"lacks any basis in Alabama law, fundamental business operations, or
even common sense."  Outdoor Aluminum's brief, p. 20.  However, Outdoor
Aluminum authored the form, and whether the process set out on the 
disciplinary-action form applies in this case is an issue for a jury to decide.
The e-mails between Rose and Redding indicate that Rose was, at
the very least, aware that  Register should meet with Dr. Maddox in a
follow-up appointment so that he could discuss the results of the FCE with
19
1200181
Register.    Register did not receive a copy of the FCE report, much less
have the results of the FCE explained to her by Dr. Maddox, before her
employment was terminated.  Additionally, Redding testified that she did
not tell Rose that Register should have been back at work.  Instead,
Redding testified that advising Rose on termination was not within her
job purview and that she had referred Rose to the claims adjuster. That
testimony, coupled with  Rose's e-mail exchange with Redding, create a 
question of fact for a jury regarding whether Register's discharge was in
retaliation for having pursued a workers' compensation claim. 
We recognize that Outdoor Aluminum claims to have terminated
Register's employment based on her alleged absenteeism.   However,
Register has presented substantial evidence that there are genuine issues
of material fact that should be resolved by a jury, including (1) whether
Outdoor Aluminum reserved the right to skip steps in its disciplinary
process and whether Register understood whether it had the discretion to
do so; (2) whether the e-mail exchange between Rose and Redding shows
a negative attitude toward Register's workers' compensation claim and
whether Redding advised Rose that Register should have already returned
20
1200181
to work before she was discharged; (3) whether Outdoor Aluminum was
aware, or should have been aware, of Dr. Cosper's restriction on Register's
returning to work; (4) and whether Rose was looking for a reason to
discharge Register for maintaining her workers' compensation claim.   In
regard to issue (4), Outdoor Aluminum's express reason for discharging
Register was absenteeism, even though Outdoor Aluminum's approved
treating physician determined that Register should not return to work
until July 27, 2017.   A jury should determine whether absenteeism was
a pretextual reason for the discharge.
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of the trial court
and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
Sellers, J., concurs in the result.
Parker, C.J., dissents. 
Mitchell, J., recuses himself.
21